ABSTRACT
THE RICHEST FARMLAND IN THE HISTORY OF MAN: GRASSROOTS RECLAMATION OF WATER IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY: 1940-1980
Starting in the early 1940s and culminating in the late 1970s, organized groups of concerned citizens fought—both politically, and socially to maintain the legality a turn-of-the-century law called the Reclamation Law. The Reclamation Law from 1902 stipulated farmers who owned more than 160 acres would not be entitled to receive federal water. This law was highly controversial in the Central Valley of California. In the Valley there would be numerous and repeated attempts by various interests to overturn or amend the law, yet despite this, small activist groups pushed back their efforts. Due to the grassroots organization of these political and social activists, efforts to amend or abolish the law would be unsuccessful for nearly four decades. Their sustained, consistent, informed, and passionate effort would prevent the Reclamation Law from being amended or overturned until the early 1980s.
Toini Jane Hiipakka August 2016
THE RICHEST FARMLAND IN THE HISTORY OF MAN: GRASSROOTS RECLAMATION OF WATER IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY: 1940-1980
by Toini Jane Hiipakka
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History in the College of Social Sciences California State University, Fresno August 2016
© 2016 Toini Jane Hiipakka APPROVED For the Department of History:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.
Toini Jane Hiipakka Thesis Author
Ethan J. Kytle (Chair) History
Maritere Lopez History
Thomas Holyoke Political Science
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS
X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my grandparents, Michael and Virginia Yturaldi who grew up working in the fields of the San Joaquin Valley—who taught me to value hard work and struggle, and who always pushed me to go further in my education. I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Thomas Holyoke, for providing me with precise direction, as well as his knowledge and expertise on local water history. His generosity of time and spirit were invaluable to me, and this project would not be as nearly as complete without his influence. Thank you also to Dr. Maritere Lopez, for her superb constructive feedback and generosity of time. Her extensive advice not only helped this project, but helped to make me a better writer. I would like to also thank Dr. Daniel Cady, who continues to illuminate both the past and the classroom with his insight, intelligence and candor. He is one who challenges us to uncover the truth, and to use it purposefully. I would also like to thank Dr. Lori Clune, who was more than simply a memorable teacher, and mentor for most of my career at Fresno State. Her personal support and encouragement in the variety of endeavors I have pursued at the university has proven to be indispensible. And at last, a special thank you to all those “community historians” in Fresno who have talked with me at length about water, agriculture, and labor. Fresno is rich in both history and community, exceptional qualities. This project is dedicated to those who continue to fight for equality within the fields of the San Joaquin—and especially dedicated to the memory of Paul S. Taylor and George “Elfie” Ballis. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Historiography ...... 14
CHAPTER 2: EARLY RESISTANCE 1940-1950 ...... 19
Events ...... 24
People and Organizations ...... 33
Conclusion ...... 53
CHAPTER 3: WESTLANDS AND THE 1960s ...... 55
The San Luis Reservoir ...... 56
Activism ...... 58
Land Break-up ...... 60
1975 Congressional Testimony ...... 63
National Land for the People, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation ...... 66
Activists and Small Farmers ...... 67
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION ...... 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 75
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Within California’s Central Valley, water has played a pivotal role, serving to generate and energize social and grassroots organizing throughout the twentieth century. Many social and political activists throughout California diligently and successfully fought for economic and social equality, and they did so through the federally allocated resource of water. Therefore, water has come to define the economy, becoming a key player in political relationships, and has carved out communities and ways of life which have had historic and long lasting consequences. Water development has come to shape people’s relationship to the land, not simply in the way people work, but in how they survive. Water is the thread holding together the Central Valley’s great patchwork of diversity, a resource which remains as precious as it is consequential. The struggles of agricultural labor throughout the Central Valley of California have been well documented and discussed. Such examples include John Steinbeck’s fictional account of the struggles endured by the Joad family in the Grapes of Wrath, and the activism of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers.1 Although these are well known, there are other, smaller, and lesser known stories which demonstrate the hard fight to maintain democracy, fairness, and justice throughout the Southern portion of the Central Valley: the San Joaquin Valley. In 1975, National Land for People (NLP), a Fresno-based grassroots activist organization, sent representatives to Washington D.C. to testify on the lack of federal concern in the Westlands Water District, a water district of nearly
1 John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath (United States of America: Stratford Press, 1939). 2 2
600,000 acres within the heart of California’s San Joaquin. George Ballis, Director of NLP offered this statement to the committee:
I suppose we have the same feeling as the founding fathers of our country had, and so we begin to think of ourselves as a liberation movement in the true spirit of the American Revolution […] Our cause is just, the usurpations we have suffered are great and we are a part of a great new spirit in the country—a new spirit which is in fact a reaffirmation of the American ethic of individual liberty, free enterprise and community cooperation.2 At its surface, the history of water development in California might not seem to elicit much in the way of passionate community activism or grassroots organizing. The intricate series of canals and dams were merely conduits for water transportation, providing the arid California Valley with the water it so desperately needed in order to become agriculturally and economically viable. And according to historian Norris Hundley, a desire to develop and irrigate California into an “agricultural paradise” has existed since the days of the gold rush. Experts throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had determined that if California was to prosper with any sort of sustained productivity, the Valley would, “require major manipulation of the state’s waterscape.”3 Not only was California arid, but it would become increasingly dry as the nineteenth century turned into the twentieth. The desire of large growers for an irrigated Central Valley became more of a reality near the turn of the century. Politicians and agricultural growers would begin to discuss the need for large scale irrigation as droughts became more frequent, and flooding more problematic. However, the desire for large scale
2 George Ballis, to Select Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, July 17 and 22 1975, 94th Congress, First Session on Will The Family Farm Survive in America? Part I: Federal Reclamation Policy (Westlands Water District) 63-64. 3 Norris Hundley, The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s-1990s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992) 232. 3 3 irrigation was not just a twentieth-century passion. Many throughout the United States and in the West had expressed desire for large-scale irrigation projects. It had been in existence since at least the 1850s, and in 1876, frontier man, and explorer John Wesley Powell published a seven volume paper titled, “A Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah.”4 In the report, Powell argued for a national irrigation system of which the federal government would have oversight. In addition, he argued irrigation and water use should be equitably used in a “Jeffersonian” manner, with cooperation and reason.5 Powell’s “Jeffersonian” description held much meaning in practical and symbolic terms. President Thomas Jefferson stood fast to his ideals when the U.S. was still in its infancy; it was embodied in the “Yeoman” farmer ideal he heartily promoted. A nation of Yeoman would be one of small farmers who could live an independent life on the land, free from the constraints of wage labor and other forms of subservience. This would be one of Jefferson’s highest and most noble visions for the United States. Jefferson would seek to enforce this ideal when land was parceled out in 160 acres to small owners and farmers, as the country expanded beyond its original thirteen colonies. The 160-acre plot was settled on as it, “came to be a measure of the proper size of farm which would provide a proper living for a family.”6 Understanding the importance of land to the character of the United States was pivotal. The point of view many early
4 John Wesley Powell, A Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah (1876). 5 Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 47-50. 6 Robert de Roos, The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1948), 74. 4 4
Americans had regarding land was that ownership represented freedom, and economic prosperity, and paved the way for political power to be distributed in a democratic fashion. Land ownership represented freedom from the tyranny of European monarchs and feudalistic relationships. As such, “Possession of land by free men, and the opportunity for free men to possess land, marked America as the land of freedom.”7 Therefore, dividing land into 160 acre plots was highly important to many early Americans, and continued to be a sentiment many held to in the nineteenth century. By 1862, President Lincoln signed into law the Homestead Act, which would continue to honor the established 160 acre policy in governmental land distribution to western settlers. The continued legal enforcement of the 160 acre policy “was designed to distribute the benefits of the public domain widely, by favoring actual settlers against monopolists and speculators of that day.”8 While the United States would greatly expand during the 1800’s, economically, industrially and in terms of land settlement, the Yeoman sentiment and the importance of the small farmer remained a federally protected and celebrated ideal. It follows that this sentiment would also influence Powell in his report arguing for national irrigation. Although Powell’s ideas were never properly financed, they did not disappear. In 1901, Senator Francis Newlands, partially inspired by Powell’s ideas, introduced a bill which would create a national irrigation program for western states. Although Newland’s bill ran into opposition, then-President
7 Robert de Roos, The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1948), 74. 8 Paul S. Taylor, “The 160-Acre Water Limitation and the Water Resources Commission,” The Western Political Quarterly 3, no. 3 (Sep. 1950), www.jstor.org/stable/443354 (accessed January, 2014). 5 5
Theodore Roosevelt took special interest in the bill and offered his support. Through political maneuvering Roosevelt signed it into law on June 17th, 1902.9 Newlands would state regarding the bill, “We have not felt in this country the evils of land monopoly…The very purpose of this bill is to guard against land monopoly and to hold this land in small tracts for the people of the entire country…”10 Newlands sentiment was a reminder of the very convictions which had inspired the numerous generations preceding him. The signing of the Reclamation Law formalized the aspirations of many for an irrigated West. It also firmly established the role of the federal government in western irrigation development, as legislation would help create irrigation projects in sixteen western states and territories.11 The Reclamation Law, however, was not simply legislation to build irrigation, but also about economic fairness. Consistent with Progressive-era ideals and oversight, Roosevelt supported development of the West, but with the determination that small farmers and families would be the primary beneficiaries. This was addressed by a portion of the legislation which declared recipients of federally irrigated water could only own 160 acres or less. In addition, in order to receive water, owners of the property must reside on the land. Referred to by Senator William E. Borah of Idaho the law as a “poor man’s law,” its objective was, according to Frederick Hayes Newell, the director of the Reclamation Service, “primarily to put the public domain into the hands of small land owners.”12 In this way the Reclamation
9 Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 117-118. 10 Paul S. Taylor, “Central Valley Project: Water and Land” 241, in Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st Sess. (1902), p 1386. 11 Donald J. Pisani, Water and American Government: The Reclamation Bureau, National Water Policy, and the West 1902-1935 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002). 12 Ibid., 1-2. 6 6
Law was meant to help direct the development of the United States out West in a manner which would honor the vision many Americans had for economic fairness, and to establish the protective role the government would have in such an undertaking for economic equality. In addition, water was meant for land which had no previous irrigation. In other words, water would not be given to irrigate already arable land. This portion of legislation would be important in understanding the Reclamation Law as one intended to help make the West livable, not to provide water to acreage functioning under already effective agricultural conditions. The Reclamation Law established a strong precedent for honoring the family farm in the development of the West, both in practical and symbolic terms. Senators who helped push the bill through Congress such as Francis G. Newlands of Nevada, made it clear that irrigation was primarily meant to make arid lands of the West fertile. In addition, it was meant to prevent monopoly of land ownership and to motivate larger land owners to break up their large tracts into smaller ones.13 Senator Newlands argued this would be beneficial to large land holders, maintaining it would stimulate the market while raising the value of larger holdings, as mere proximity to water sources would make land much more valuable.14 As Carey McWilliams illustrated in California: The Great Exception, the importance of the 1902 acreage limitation is that a new device had been formed, one with which now “after a hundred years, the pattern of large land
13 Mary Montgomery and Marion Clawson, United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics: History of Legislation and Policy Formation of the Central Valley Project, (Berkeley: United States Dept. of Agriculture, 1946), 133. 14 Ibid., 134. 7 7 holdings in the Valley can be changed.”15 The Reclamation Law would therefore be a mechanism which would not only prevent land monopolization in the West, but one which could also break up the well established and large acreage patterns of ownership in the Valley. The Reclamation Act seemed to be a promising new start for Central Valley farmers and growers. And yet, reclamation efforts overseen by the federal government were generally unproductive, achieving only insignificant results. This was partially due to the resistance the Reclamation Service encountered, especially from “large landowners fearful of the 160-acre limitation”16 The Reclamation Act was up against an already well established pattern of land monopolization in California. By the early twentieth century land owners within the greater Central Valley included corporations such as Southern Pacific, Standard Oil, (and other oil companies) as well as wealthy private owners who each owned anywhere between 15,000 and 75,000 acres.17 For example, within Kern County alone, Standard Oil owned 89, 810 acres, 94 percent of them irrigated, and Kern County Land company owned 223,534 acres, 99 percent of which were irrigated.18 Other oil companies included Belridge Oil, Tidewater Oil, General Petroleum, and Shell Oil, which each owned between 15,000 and 25,000 acres.19 More specifically, by 1920, 60 percent of land was owned in plots of a thousand acres or more, and by 1935, that number percentage would increase to
15 Carey McWilliams, California: The Great Exception, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949), 333. 16 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 237. 17 Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 337. 18 Irrigation would be an important issue, as the Reclamation Law would seek to provide irrigation to land which had not yet been inundated with water. 19 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 273, in “Landownerships in Excess of 10,000 Acres, State Service Area, San Joaquin Valley Portion, Kern County, California” (1959) file 1.3 Brody Papers. 8 8
70.20 This was also a problem within Fresno County where small farmers were often excluded from land ownership as public lands were freely given to wheat barons, cattlemen, and speculators.21 This is not to say that there were no small farms in the Central Valley. In the 1930’s, for example, 89 percent of land owners in three San Joaquin Valley counties held 160 acres or less, and many of them had already established their own means of irrigation, especially through local irrigation districts. Reliance on groundwater, and the large Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, as well as the smaller rivers connected to them, such as the Kings, Kaweah and Kern was also commonplace. Still, 66 percent of irrigable land was owned in acreages which far exceeded the 160 limit.22 While valuable, these water sources were problematic, as they flooded frequently and were difficult to control. In addition, groundwater accessed through wells was limited and often inconsistent. Due to periodic droughts and low precipitation, growers remained thirsty for water and many felt that large scale irrigation was necessary for any consistently profitable production. Irrigation would also help alleviate the problems associated with such a naturally dry environment. Living in California had been difficult and trying for Central Valley farmers, as many had been plagued with the dry conditions inherent to such an arid environment As Hundley details, although advances in farming during the early years of the twentieth century were taking place, there had always been a “tenuous quality about it.”23 As a result, demand for supplemental water
20 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 238 in Jelinek, Harvest Empire, 63. 21 David Vaught, Cultivating California: Growers, Specialty Crops, and Labor 1875-1920 (Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1999), 16. 22 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 256. 23 Ibid., 238. 9 9 continued to increase throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Big growers and large landowners, specifically, supported the idea of a large-scale water program which would provide security for irrigation through control of the natural flow of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and of the captured flood waters which were otherwise going to “waste” at sea.24 While the desire for irrigation of California’s Central Valley was strong throughout the early years of the twentieth century, and various public and private interests pushed for large scale irrigation development, it was not until the 1920s that the State of California was ready to announce its plans for a large scale, state- sponsored irrigation project. This development had also been partially sparked by concerns which became more serious and pressing throughout the 1920s. In particular, the San Joaquin Valley was affected by a damaging and costly drought; from 1928 to 1935 pumping had depleted the groundwater of nearly 400,000 acres, and farms totaling nearly 20,000 acres had been abandoned.25 Added to this were difficulty in legislating water rights throughout the state, financial problems and a lack of regulatory oversight, as well as increased agricultural production costs. These problems eventually reached a climax and prompted state engineers to begin designing a state wide irrigation project.26 The State Water Plan, which would later evolve into the Central Valley Project (CVP), took half a million dollars to conceive, and nearly seven years of planning.27 State Engineer Edward Hyatt officially made his case for a large
24 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 238. 25 Lawrence B. Lee, “California Water Politics: Opposition to the CVP, 1944-1980,” Agricultural History 54, no. 3 (July 1980): 406. 26 Martin D. Mitchell, “The Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta, California: Initial Transformation into a Water Supply and Conveyance Node, 1900-1955,” Journal of the West XXXV, no.1 (Jan. 1996): 51. 27 Edward Hyatt, “A State Water Policy for California” (presentation, American Water Works Association Conference, San Francisco, CA June 2, 1928), 6. 10 10 scale, state controlled water project in 1928, determining that the fate of California’s economic future rested with water “the progress and prosperity of the state depend upon and are limited by the available water supplies. Water is the one limiting natural resources of this state”28 Hyatt outlined a number of benefits that would result from the plan, including a substantial degree of flood control, a large amount of hydro-electric power, the elimination of salt water, more efficient navigation of the Sacramento River, and the exportation of water for the irrigation of “the deficient lands of the San Joaquin.”29 Given organized backing by various farmers, California voters approved the Central Valley Project Act in 1933, and it successfully pushed through the 1933 legislature. A $170,000,000 bond proposition for the project was endorsed by California voters later that same year.30 At its foundation, the Central Valley Project was a system of several major dams meant to control floods, improve navigation, and provide irrigation water. These dams include Shasta and Keswick dams on the Sacramento River, and the Folsom Dam on the American River, which all capture floodwater and release it when needed into Sacramento’s Valley. Central Valley Project plans also included: the New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River, and the Friant Dam on the San Joaquin. The Friant Dam captures runoff water from the Sierra Nevada, sending it through the Friant-Kern Canal, irrigating the southern portion of the Valley.31 In addition to these dams, the CVP also contains four major canal
28 Hyatt, State Water Policy, 2. 29 Ibid., 8. 30 Erwin Cooper, Aqueduct Empire: A Guide to Water in California: Its Turbulent History and Its Management Today (Glendale: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1968), 149. 31 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 252-253. 11 11 systems which move water throughout the center of the state for different purposes. These systems are the Tehama-Colusa Canal, the Contra-Costa Canal, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and the Friant-Kern Canal. Of consequence for the San Joaquin Valley are the Delta-Mendota Canal and the Friant-Kern Canal, the latter which brings water to the fields of the San Joaquin. The Delta-Mendota Canal which travels parallel to the San Joaquin river, brings water from the center of the state to the San Joaquin Valley while the Friant-Kern Canal irrigates the southern portion of the Valley with runoff water from the Sierra Nevada captured by the Friant Dam.32 The construction of the CVP was a monumental undertaking. Its intricate systems of dams and canals were a feat of engineering, technological development, and modernization. There was great excitement, anticipation, and suspense for construction of the project to begin after the planning process concluded, but planners would find themselves to be greatly disappointed. It was a rather unexpected that development the State of California could not actually fund its own project. The economic conditions experienced throughout California due to the Great Depression left a project approved, designed and planned by the State without funding. With strong support from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was “open to almost any proposal that would create jobs and soften the depression’s harshness”33 and who would prove to be a formidable ally to Central Valley farmers, State officials were forced to let the federal Bureau of Reclamation take over financing and construction of the project.
32 Hundley, 252-253. 33 Ibid., 252. 12 12
This shift would later prove to be highly consequential, placing decades of development, planning, research and funding into the hands of federal officers, New Deal officials, and beneath the umbrella of the 1902 Reclamation Law. The majority of ranchers and growers throughout the Valley had little to no understanding of the implications of such a change, as many were desperate for its construction, and were simply pleased with the project finally coming to fruition. According to Robert de Roos, the 160acreage limitation was mentioned, yet many of the “Bureau boys”—those who worked for the Bureau of Reclamation—told Valley ranchers, “Don’t worry about the reclamation laws. Let’s get the dams and the canals built. Then we can argue about the law.”34 This careless attitude would conceal any hint of the tumultuous battles which would, with time, begin to emerge. After the federal government officially took over funding and construction of the project, acreage limitation would become a highly controversial measure. It would cause many of those who had pushed for the CVP in the first place to feel bewildered resentful and even betrayed. Although many agricultural interests either were unaware of or opposed the acreage limitations, de Roos argued that state officials, the state Legislature, and members of the California Congressional delegations, were all aware acreage limitation would be a central part of the CVP: “Vocal in Washington, they were strangely silent when they were with folks at home.”35 Therefore, many political representatives were supportive of the 160 acreage limitation in Congress, but with the farmers and growers of the Central Valley, their opinions were not as clear. This inconsistency would be made more
34 de Roos, The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project, 92. 35 Ibid., 94. 13 13 manifest throughout the ensuing decades, yet was already apparent in the planning stages of the project. These grievances would grow to inspire a variety of struggles and political fights. The battles would be significant and would inspire discontent, passionate rumblings, and dedicated organization throughout the Central Valley, in Sacramento, and in Washington D.C. These struggles reflected the difficulty many encountered in their attempt to amend or successfully eliminate the Reclamation Law. Organized groups of contentious and concerned citizens sought to make the Valley’s story their own by trying to uphold and honor the early values evident in the turn-of-the-century legislation. As reflected throughout various times during the American narrative, legislation, especially that which is not honored in day-to-day reality, tends to inspire action from below to make it such. In this, California’s Central Valley was no exception. As construction advanced on the project throughout the 1930s and 1940s President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his “New Deal” cabinet took special interest in the development of the Central Valley Project, and the impact this would have upon the people of the Valley. Upon the heels of such stories such as John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and Carey McWilliams exposé of large scale factory farm conditions in Factories in the Fields, Roosevelt felt reform of farming conditions was necessary.36 Roosevelt declared that reclamation projects should- “give first chance to the ‘Grapes of Wrath’ families of the nation.”37 This sentiment would inspire and ignite the passion of many small activist groups who would seek to honor and uphold the ethos expressed by President Roosevelt and
36 Carey McWilliams, Factories in the Fields (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1935). 37 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 260. 14 14 his cabinet. Due to this careful concern for the small farmer, the issue of who should receive federal water became more pressing. Far after federal influence was no longer as influential, the precedent set by such looming leaders would not be easily forgotten by small farmers. As the Reclamation Law and the reality of the 160-acre limitation became more of a reality for large California growers and farmers, strong resistance became increasingly apparent. Before the CVP was even fully functional, political efforts were made to repeal the law. It would be these attempts to either amend or completely abolish the 160 acreage limitation of the Reclamation Law which would ignite activism in small groups of concerned and organized political and social activists. As historian and economist Paul S. Taylor would write, “Even the strong and sympathetic administrator is more or less vulnerable to the kind of pressure brought to bear by opponents of the anti-monopoly, anti-speculation features of reclamation law.”38 Although these small groups were fighting against much stronger political interests, including Congressmen, lobbyists, massive landowners, agricultural corporations, and even the Bureau of Reclamation for failure to enforce the law, these small groups, through their sustained and consistent efforts, prevented abolishment of the historic acreage law for nearly four decades.
Historiography Community activism is discussed in the scholarship of water development in California, yet the larger canonical texts tend to focus upon the complex consequences of development. Issues such as progress, technology, and
38 Paul S. Taylor, “The Excess Land Law: Execution of a Public Policy,” The Yale Law Journal 64, no. 4 (Feb., 1955): 503. 15 15 innovation, are pitted against problems which are commonly discussed such as environmental damage, political corruption, and economic inequality. Generally, recent scholarship is critical of water development. Monographs such as Norris Hundley’s The Great Thirst, published in 2001, provide a comprehensive story of water development, yet Hundley argues water development has created environmental damage, political disorder, and an un-sustainable dependency on manmade irrigation.39 Likewise, Donald Worster in Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity and the Growth of the American West is highly critical of water development in the West, arguing that large scale irrigation projects have created alarming economic and social corruption, inequality and disparity.40 Worster’s work focuses on the deeper implications of irrigation for the culture and society of the Central Valley, arguing, “Control over water has again and again provided an effective means of consolidating power within human groups”41 In the same vein as Worster’s work, and widely known due to its popularity is Marc Reisner’s Cadillac Desert.42 Resiner’s text details the story of irrigation in California, and is one of the most critical of water development, as he chronicles both political corruption and environmental damage. Other prominent writers include social critics from the early to mid- twentieth century such as Carey McWilliams, John Steinbeck, and former University of California Berkeley, Economics Professor Paul S. Taylor who are frequently cited for their contributions in bringing public awareness to the
39 Hundley, The Great Thirst: Californians and Water. 40 Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985). 41 Worster, Rivers of Empire, 20. 42 Reisner, Cadillac Desert. 16 16 conditions of farm labor in the San Joaquin Valley. Although these writers have contributed greatly to scholarship in California, their objective was to inform the public regarding water conditions, and they should be understood more as primary sources. Regardless, their work remains important and vital sources for understanding the water issues which plagued California. For instance, McWilliams’ classic, Factories in the Fields is frequently discussed in water scholarship seeking to understand the social consequences of large scale agricultural farming.43 Collectively, the work of these scholars reflect a deeper understanding of water development during the twentieth century, one which has focused on the consequence of massive irrigation in the Central Valley, and how this irrigation continues to further entrench unhealthy social, and economic conditions. Other scholarship on water development in California is a little more nuanced, seeking to illuminate some of the complication in irrigation of the West. Historian Donald J. Pisani explores water law, policy and regulation by offering a political analysis of the turn-of-the-century legislation which came to define California’s water development. In this sense he is critical of Worster and Reisner’s classic works because, as he states, these authors “teach us much about the arrogance of American attempts to manage and control nature, but they also present a distorted view of the past. Both write history from the ‘top down’ and understate the complexity of politics and power.”44 Other scholarship places emphasis upon the consequences of American capitalism for water development and the West. Some of these works include David Igler’s examination of early
43 Carey McWilliams, Factories in the Fields (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1935). 44 Pisani, Water and American Government, 284. 17 17 monopolization of California, in Industrial Cowboys: Miller & Lux and the Transformation of the Far West 1850-1920.45 Earlier scholarship on water include the classic Aqueduct Empire: A Guide to Water in California, Its Turbulent History and Management Today, a 1968 text by Erwin Cooper, (a former journalist and information officer for the California Department of Water Resources). Cooper explores the political negotiations and relationships that affected water policy in the mid-twentieth century.46 Other significant works include Robert de Roos’ 1947 The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project in which de Roos discusses some of the complexities of enforcement and support of the Reclamation Law.47 De Roos expressed early support for the Bureau of Reclamation for upholding the interests of the public in water management, especially over special interests and corporations. The historiography addressed provides a thorough overview of the major political, economic and social forces which have impacted water development in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The contribution of this research however, will be its focus on the grassroots response within the Valley, specifically the ways in which various activists found success in their fight to protect the small farmer through water legislation aimed at distribution. It will also examine how such large scale water systems affected the people of the Valley, and the formation of corporate farms it helped to enable. This includes an investigation into the issues these organizers raised, such as the importance of the small family farm, the economic and cultural conditions created by large scale farming, and the role and
45 David Igler Industrial Cowboys: Miller & Lux and the Transformation of the Far West 1850- 1920 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001). 46 Cooper, Aqueduct Empire: A Guide to Water in California. 47 de Roos, The Thirsty Land, viii. 18 18 responsibility of the federal government. Illuminating these public struggles within the San Joaquin Valley demonstrate how these issues connect to equality, democracy and the at times elusive, but formidable American ethos. The pages below elucidate the ways in which small groups of social and political activists from the San Joaquin Valley have sought to make the federal allocation of water as equitable as possible. This research will showcase their diligence, strength, and conviction, and the impact their efforts made upon the consciousness of the Valley. For nearly four decades, these small groups of passionate citizens wielded substantial political power through their commitment, tenacious work, and political leadership, successfully defeating interests which sought to eliminate the 160 acreage law. These groups emerged in two distinctive waves, the first during the 1940s and 1950s and the second in the 1960s and 1970s. Each wave is explored and discussed in subsequent chapters.
CHAPTER 2: EARLY RESISTANCE 1940-1950
Shortly after the Central Valley Project (CVP) had been built and was fully functional, there was a brief period of tenuous silence. Officials throughout the state were pleased, if not overjoyed with the finishing touches being applied to the CVP in 1939. After a celebratory ribbon cutting at Friant Dam, officials expressed their delight at this triumph of human innovation and technology. Even at this exuberant celebration, Governor Culbert L. Olson stressed the significance of the CVP as a project which would be solidly in the grip of public ownership, both in terms of water and electric power. “It is my first conviction that the lowest costs for the major benefits of the Central Valley Project can be realized only under a comprehensive system of Public Ownership.”48 Although public ownership was celebrated by many, and the federal government’s oversight of the project through the management of the Bureau of Reclamation was understood, many corporate growers paid little attention to such implications. By 1944, politicians would begin to instigate political reform to amend and abolish the 160 acreage limitation of the Reclamation Law which now accompanied federal oversight. Although politicians and agricultural growers anticipated the limitation would be easily amended in the Valley, the reality would prove to be quite different. Small and large groups of activists would begin to emerge, speaking out against efforts to amend the law, despite the realities of massive acreage ownership in California’s Central Valley. A variety of activists ranging from academics to movie stars to farmer grangers and religious groups, would exert substantial influence and success in their prevention of such efforts.
48 California Highways & Public Works, “Public Ownership Imperative Says Governor Olson,” December 1939, 1. 20 20
Of particular consequence to such activist movements was the role of the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Shortly after the CVP had been built, the Bureau was publically supportive of the Reclamation Law, yet throughout the twentieth century, this support would not be consistent. According to scholar Christina Flores, the Bureau followed a policy of “technical compliance” in the later years of the 1940s.49 Technical compliance would result in “the façade of enforcement and the reality of non-enforcement.”50 Flores expands upon Hundley’s argument that the Bureau was technically compliant in this manner, but adds that the response was due to various groups who were seeking to amend, abolish, or maintain the acreage limitation law.51 Technical compliance was a strategy which allowed the Bureau to please a variety of parties with conflicting political interests, while further expanding their own influence. The history of the Bureau also has a place within this story. Technical compliance may only be a very simple understanding of the motivations held by various Bureau individuals throughout the twentieth century. As Reisner stated, “The engineers who staffed the Reclamation Service tended to view themselves as a godlike class performing hydrologic miracles for grateful simpletons who were content to sit in the desert and raise fruit.”52 During the early years of the Bureau’s existence, many officials were often subjected to “political pressures” for reclamation projects and as a result reacted haphazardly to the conditions and
49 Christina Flores, “They Rule the Valley: The Story of How Large Central Valley Landholders Became the Primary Beneficiaries of the Central Valley Project,” eScholarship University of California, Berkeley (2011) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7s79r340, Pg7 (accessed December 15th, 2015). 50 Ibid., 7. 51 Ibid. 52 Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 119. 21 21 effects reclamation projects would have.53 Michael Robinson, son-in-law of a Bureau Commissioner, admitted many Bureau officials regarded the agency as an engineering organization, one which was to build heroic projects which would be, “the most spellbinding effort of modern time—transforming the desert into a garden..”54 This illustrates the way in which many Bureau officials handled development of the agency, a drive which would often place enforcement and oversight of acreage limitation as secondary to development. As Marc Reisner argues, “Enforcing repayment obligations and worrying about speculators and excess landowners was a cumbersome, troublesome, time-consuming nuisance—a nuisance without a reward. Was the Bureau to abandon the most spellbinding effort of modern times—transforming the desert into a garden—just because a few big landowners were taking advantage…?”55 These sentiments and declarations reveal motivating factors as to why many Bureau officials might not have been as compliant with enforcement as they were required to be. This is an important point in understanding the grievances of activists to follow. Although many small farmers and growers would accuse the Bureau of having questionable motives and failing to properly enforce acreage limitation, senior officials in the Interior Department during these early years were allies of the Reclamation Law. In particular, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, who oversaw the Bureau would emerge as a formidable ally for small farmers in the Valley, firmly endorsing the 160 acreage limitation.56 This support of President
53 Ibid, 119. 54 Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 123. 55 Ibid, 123. 56 Richard Lowitt, The New Deal and the West (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 195. 22 22
Roosevelt and Secretary Ickes would partially instigate public passion and action, setting a precedent for support at the federal level which would justify the grassroots activism that would soon emerge.57 Additionally, Reclamation officials would not be deterred by the reality of increasing farm sizes following World War II. Instead, the family farm ideal would persist as something worth holding on to.58 At the federal level there would be a series of studies involving the Central Valley, seeking to understand the implications of federal irrigation and the accompanying acreage limitation. In 1940, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics would conclude that due to the large scale land ownership throughout the Valley, enforcement of acreage limitation would make the Bureau of Reclamation a particularly significant force, one with enough power to prevent complete economic monopolization of the region by larger agricultural landholders.59 During these early years, the Bureau would also take more of a proactive role in conducting research to understand the larger consequences of the CVP. In 1942, the Bureau would embark upon a series of twenty-five studies aimed at understanding the CVP, with one in particular, Acreage Limitation in the Central Valley: A Report on Problem 19, devoted to acreage limitation.60 The findings of Problem 19, reached by a committee of both private and public investigators, would conclude that “the desirability of aiding or inhibiting one economic group,
57 Flores, “They Rule the Valley,” 24. 58 Donald J. Pisani, “Federal Reclamation and the American West in the Twentieth Century,” Agricultural History Society 77, no. 3 (Summer, 2003), 401. 59 Flores, “They Rule the Valley,” 27. 60 Ibid, 28. 23 23 in contrast with other economic groups, is a political question deserving of serious consideration.”61 In this vein, another rather infamous study led by anthropologist and New Dealer Walter Goldschmidt (University of California) compared Dinuba and Arvin, two small towns in the Central Valley. Goldschmidt argued that Dinuba, surrounded by farms with an average size of sixty acres, displayed a higher standard of living, more schools, and a stronger community life than Arvin, which was surrounded by farms of 500 acres or more. Goldschmidt’s stance supported the argument made by many activists that a community’s quality of life could be attributed directly to the scale of farming surrounding it. Studies such as these would help to influence federal officials such as Secretary Ickes who would tell Goldschmidt, “I am decidedly of the opinion that we ought to do everything in our power to enforce the 160-acre limitation”62 This initial support at the federal level would taper off in later years, however, studies and support such as this gave life to the efforts of small groups which emerged to prevent abolishment of the acreage limitation. Activists would recognize that the law was not merely about preventing monopolies or providing water for arid land. Within the Valley, the law would have much deeper implications, including quality of life, responsibility to community, and collective well-being. These small groups of political and social
61 Flores, 29 in U.S. Agricultural Economics, Acreage Limitation in the Central Valley: A Report on Problem 19 (Berkeley: 1944), IV. 62 Clayton Koppes, “Public Water, Private Land: Origins of the Acreage Limitation Controversy, 1933-1953,” Pacific Historical Review 47, no. 4 (Nov., 1978): 615 in Arthur Goldschmidt to Ickes, April 10 1944, file 8-3, part 4, Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Record Group 48, National Archives; Ickes to Page, March 30, 1940 file 400.08. 24 24 activists helped set a precedent and possibly even a new expectation, one which inspire grassroots support and a twentieth-century emphasis on the small farmer. The early impact this activism made can be understood by examining efforts through two lenses: the major events which would transpire, as well as the significant activists who would emerge as leaders, both autonomously and with the support of various groups. The events which small activists groups were able to impact and also bring about are discussed below.
Events The major and noteworthy events which activist activity instigated during these early years of the Central Valley Project are discussed in the following section. These events represent the amount of political activity, national attention, public sentiment, and concern which surrounded the 160-acre limitation and its importance in the hearts and minds of many during these early years.
The Elliot Amendment Some of the strongest and earliest resistance emerged as early as 1944, following California Congressman Alfred Elliott’s proposed amendment to repeal the 160-acre limitation. Various large landholding interests would not accept the assertion made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, that enforcement of the acreage limitation would occur upon the Valley lands watered by the newly built CVP.63 As a result, the family farm became a hot political topic, and the amount of outcry from various farming organizations, and other special interests groups such as veterans and religious organizations would be controversial enough to produce national attention. The
63 Paul S Taylor, “Central Valley Project: Water and Land,” The Western Political Quarterly 2, no 2. (June 1949): 243. 25 25 debate would be so intense that large agricultural business interests believed a campaign had been orchestrated by the Bureau to attract small farmers and organized labor to support the idea of the family farm in California and on the national stage.64 In March of 1944, Congressman Elliot brought to the floor of the House a committee amendment to the Rivers and Harbors Bill (H.R. 3961) which would have exempted the CVP from acreage limitation. Although the Elliot Amendment passed in the House, it would run up against public hearings in the Senate. A variety of groups and individuals would come to the floor to speak out against any exemption in acreage limitation. Activist and University of California, Berkeley Economist Paul S. Taylor was also highly active, and would ask a variety of groups to appear at the hearings to help prevent passage of the amendment. These groups included the Farmer’s Union, the National Grange, and the AFL.65 Heated debate and arguments would emerge from both sides of the limitation issue, engaging the passion of senators Robert LaFollette from Wisconsin and Dennis Chavez from New Mexico, among others. LaFollette acknowledged the complication regarding federal oversight within the Central Valley; however, he maintained the importance of honoring the values embedded within the acreage limitation. He stressed the law as foundational to the historical values of the United States; as such, if it were to be abolished it would create an unhealthy trend for future generations. As he stated in hearings, “I am not willing to concede that the fundamental policy of the United States Government for the development of
64 Lee, “California Water Politics,” 411. 65 Henry Madden Library, Special Collections at California State University Fresno. Paul S. Taylor to Suzanne B. Riess, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume I: Education, Field Research, and Family, The Bancroft Library, Regional Oral History Office, Earl Warren Oral History Project (Berkeley: Regents of the University of California), 178-185. 26 26 reclamation projects out of the Treasury of the United States should be altered”66 Senator Chavez also supported maintenance of acreage limitation by arguing for economic accountability in California. Chavez estimated that reclamation in California would cost the United States Government and subsequently, American taxpayers nearly 400,000,000.00 dollars. He stressed it would be unfair to allow acreage limitation to be abolished in California, as it would allow particular individuals to benefit from water without repaying the costs, as was the case in other states.67 Various public groups also spoke adamantly against repeal of the acreage limitation law, specifically: the California Grange, CIO, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Veterans Committee, Catholic Rural Life Conference, Congregational Christian, Presbyterian, the national convention of the American Legion, as well as some Jewish organizations. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Reclamation also publically opposed the amendment.68 In addition, the dispute was complicated by the fact that many representatives within larger organizations which opposed the Amendment, would publically support it. For instance, The California Farm Bureau Federation, California State Chamber of Commerce, and the California Irrigation Districts Association all publically supported the Elliot Amendment, even though some of members of these organizations made public statements supporting the 160 acreage limitation.69
66 Montgomery, History of Legislation and Policy Formation of the Central Valley Project, 170. 67 Ibid, 171. 68 Ibid, 165. 69 Paul S. Taylor, “Central Valley Project” 244 in Testimony of Frank T. Swett, Hearings before Subcommittee of Senate Committee on Commerce on H.R. 3961, 78th Cong., 2d Sess (1946) p. 618; testimony of C.A. Talbott, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. Res. 295, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946), p. 286. Address by Warren Fowler, Sacramento 27 27
The Elliot Amendment was a polarizing topic which instigated many heated debates. While the amendment was before Congress, in May of 1944, the periodical Business Week debated possible alternatives that supporters of the Amendment may seek to escape acreage limitation if defeated.70 Other national newspapers such as the Washington Post published editorials regarding the acreage law and resistance. For example in March of 1947 a Post editorial stated: “War veterans and others hoping to buy small tracts and become independent farm operators would be denied the chance the reclamation law was intended to accord them if this grab goes through.”71 Testimony from public hearing included farmers such as E.T. Wall, from Selma, California who stated, “I am definitely in favor of the 160-acre limitation […] I feel there should be a human side to this and that the purpose of the project should be to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”72 The Elliot Amendment was the first major attempt to significantly alter the 160-acre limitation, yet it did not pass by quietly, it inspired a large amount of resistance, which would only be the beginning of such activity. Social and political organization would continue to be a presence, especially as the larger political, agricultural, and otherwise corporate interests sought to amend and even abolish the historic 160 acreage limitation law. Although these politically active groups were small, they were nonetheless
Valley Council State Chamber of Commerce, Senator Hotel, Sacramento, 12:00noon, February 28 1947 (mimeo), 2 p. Testimony of R. W. Pixley, chairman, board of directors, Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District, on S. Res. 295, p. 461. 70 Taylor, “Central Valley Project,” 245. 71 Sheridan Downey, They Would Rule the Valley, (University of California, 1947), 40. 72 Flores, 33 in U.S. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation. 1944. Central Valley Project, California. 78th Cong., 2nd sess., July 24-29, 278. 28 28 successful in fighting back against other interests, proving their resistance to be formidable.
Tulare Lake Tulare Lake has had a precarious past in Central Valley history. Before large scale irrigation made an impact in the southern portion of the San Joaquin, Tulare Lake would be known for holding one of the largest bodies of fresh water within the United States. After the Boswell Corporation, among others, monopolized land ownership around Tulare Lake for farming purposes, ownership around the lake would be owned in tens of thousands of acres. This land was primarily used for various agricultural purposes, particularly the growing of cotton.73 By the mid 1940’s the land would be so heavily monopolized that twenty- five corporations owned fifty-five per cent of the land, and 102 people owned thirty-six percent.74 Due to the concentration of land ownership in tracts which far exceeded the 160 acre limitation, there was heavy interest in using the Army Corps of Engineers to build irrigation near Tulare Lake, as Corps projects were generally not subject to acreage limitation. In 1940, Congressman Bertrand Gearhart specifically sought to bypass enforcement of the Reclamation Law by using the Army Corps to oversee the irrigation projects in the area. Although Tulare Lake was dominated by large corporate agricultural growers, small farmers and special interest groups were not willing to accept such political maneuvering. Citizens understood the implications of the Army Corps and Gearhart’s efforts to secure Army authority. As a result, a “vigorous protest” began from the citizens
73 Reisner, Cadillac Desert, 182. 74 Taylor, “Central Valley Project,” 248. 29 29 of Tulare.75 The protest would include nearly 2,500 signatures, and was organized around the Grange, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and labor unions.76 Tulare Lake later became an issue again in the 1950s due to new attempts made by politicians, particularly Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, to circumvent the 160 acre law. After less than a year from entering office in 1953, McKay authorized negotiation of a “repayment” contract on the Kings River and Tulare Lake Project, the payment of which would render the Reclamation Law inoperative.77 Prepayment allowed for companies and other landholders to make payments in lieu of the legal requirement to dispose of land holdings which exceeded the 160 acreage limitation. Economist Paul S. Taylor argued the action of McKay in his authorization of prepayment- represented the sentiments of administrators who he considered to have abandoned the small farmer. Taylor feared McKay represented the general sentiment of Congress: “If McKay’s [authorization] expresses the will of Congress and represents application of the excess land law, words have been emptied of their meaning.”78 And McKay’s successor, Fred Seaton, would denounce his predecessor’s efforts, claiming such political tactics to be in violation of the Reclamation Law, a significant victory for small farmers.79 Valley citizens were informed of such tactics, and as a result, such political efforts aimed at reaching the goals of large agricultural corporate growers, and the leaders who represented them, were never entirely successful.
75 Taylor, “Central Valley Project,” 248. 76 Ibid, 248. 77 Taylor, “Excess Land Law: Execution of a Public Policy,” 509. 78 Ibid, 514. 79 Worster, Rivers of Empire, 288. 30 30 Pine Flat Dam Pine Flat Dam would become a point of controversy within the CVP. In 1940, the Army Corps of Engineers would seek to build and manage a dam at Pine Flat on the Kings River, in Fresno County.80 Since the dam would be managed by the Army Corps, and not the Bureau, land owners who owned in excess of the 160 acreage limitation would be entitled to receive federal water. Heated debates would soon emerge regarding which organization should have control and oversight of the Pine Flat Dam: the Army Corps or the Bureau. The Grange especially would publically state the importance of Bureau control at Pine Flat. A representative of the Fresno County Pomona Grange would state: “It seems to me that I will gain the most, and that other farmers and local businessmen, too, throughout the Central Valley will gain the most from the unified development of our remaining water resources. The Bureau of Reclamation has a plan to accomplish this.”81 As a result, Secretary Ickes and President Roosevelt would involve themselves, demanding any development on the river should be subject to Bureau oversight.82 The Army Corp of Engineers had significant support in Congress to build the dam and maintain oversight, but in 1944, the Senate would pass legislation to ensure acreage limitation was part of the Pine Flat Dam bill.83 Although this was a victory for small farmers, shortly thereafter, in 1946, Harold Ickes would resign as Secretary of the Interior.84 This would mark the beginning of a significant shift in policy for the Bureau of Reclamation, as it would take on a different character during the Truman presidency to follow. However, small
80 Lowitt, The New Deal and the West, 197. 81 de Roos, 66. 82 Lowitt, The New Deal and the West, 197-198. 83 Koppes, “Public Water, Private Land: Origins of the Acreage Limitation Controversy,” 619. 84 Ibid, 619. 31 31 forces of organized groups would still continue to speak out on acreage limitation within the Central Valley despite lack of consensus, clear support and enforcement at various governmental levels. Due to the shift in Bureau policy, Pine Flat Dam would become a more contentious issue. After Michael Straus took over as Commissioner of Reclamation, enforcement would begin to reflect “technical compliance,” a policy which allowed landowners in excess of the acreage limitation to receive federal water.85 Some of these compliance factors would include allowing excess land- owners to receive water for another decade without having to sell off their excess land, as well as a lump-sum payment system by which large landowners would pay for construction charges associated with project costs.86 Straus had contemplated applying some of these technical compliance loop-holes in particular to Pine Flat Dam. In October of 1952 defenders of the 160-acre law discovered Straus’ attempt to lift the acreage limitation over Pine Flat Dam through the lump- sum payment system. Specifically, the National Farmers Union and its president, James G. Patton, who no longer trusted the Bureau to represent small farmer interests would take action. According to Clayton Koppes, Patton “mobilized” supporters of the 160-acre law and wrote a letter directly to President Harry Truman: “Unless you act fast and decisively, your Administration is about to go down in history, ironically, as the one that pulled the plug on the American family farm policy.”87 Although Truman was generally unsupportive of the acreage limitation, he nonetheless responded by seeking the counsel of Oscar Chapman, the then Secretary of the Interior. Chapman’s response would often be
85 Ibid, 624. 86 Ibid, 626. 87 Ibid, 632. 32 32 inconsistent and he would later resign, but he would write to Straus, “I am instructing you…to refuse to accept any lump sum or accelerated payment of construction charges”88 No doubt the agitation and political nature of such a polarizing topic influenced even rather unsympathetic and inconsistent federal officials such as Truman and Chapman to maintain the acreage limitation.
Ivanhoe The fight to maintain acreage limitation was not limited to California, as the fight would go all the way to the United States Supreme Court in 1958. It began when an owner within Tulare County’s Ivanhoe Irrigation District, one who owned more than the 160-acre limitation, sued in order to halt the district’s enforcement of acreage limitation. The case would go the California Supreme Court in The Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. All Parties (1957).89 The California Supreme Court would side with the landowner, stating that, the 160-acre law was a piece of “class legislation” and “unlawful discrimination” against wealthy landowners.90 Shortly after however, the United States Supreme Court would strike down this ruling. A variety of individuals and organizations which contributed to the prevention of the 160-acre abolishment are discussed below. Many of these groups and individuals worked in tandem, with the support of a particular organization or other activists.
88 Ibid, 633. 89 Worster, Rivers of Empire, 289. 90 Ibid, 289. 33 33 People and Organizations
George Sehlmeyer and the State Grange: (California Farm Organizations) One group undoubtedly influenced by the precedent set by Ickes and the New Dealers was the State Grange. At its inception, and until the 1920s, the Grange was a social organization for farmers with a special focus upon correcting the ills of a corrupt California society, such as excessive drinking, and rowdy saloons.91 Throughout the 1920’s, the Grange came to embody a slightly more political presence, partially motivated by the desire to help alleviate economic concerns of farmers in the post-war years. During these years the Grange would also actively seek to expand its membership and influence growing from 4,800 members in 1921 to 8,300 in 1929. Although the Grange was becoming more influential and prominent politically, it continued to be characterized by a Christian, rural and ethical moral outlook.92 In the Fall of 1929, George Sehlmeyer would became the new State Master. This promotion marked a significant shift away from previous leaders, as the Grange would grow considerably under Sehlmeyer’s popular and highly influential direction. Sehlmeyer had been very active politically in the years leading up to his election, and was most likely one of the most qualified men for the position. Sehlmeyer and his parents had been active Grange members and he had served in a variety of smaller Grange organizations throughout Sacramento County, before serving on the Standing Committee on Cooperation for the state
91 Clarke A. Chambers, California Farm Organizations: A Historical Study of the Grange, the Farm Bureau, and the Associated Farmers, 1929-1941. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952): 13. 92 Ibid. 34 34 and the Grange Legislative Committee, and serving as State Lecturer.93 During the years in which he served, Sehlmeyer was very active politically advocating for small farmers and helping to address their economic concerns.94 The State Grange in particular would be very involved in campaigns to maintain the acreage limitation, as they were particularly vocal about protecting the small family farm. For instance, they publically proclaimed it would be “disastrous” for the State of California to adopt the Elliot Amendment.95 The Grange had upwards of 25,000 self-proclaimed “dirt farmers” as members, who “declared themselves at war with monopoly in general.”96 Sehlmeyer in particular proclaimed himself a “determined foe of PGE and corporate farmers.”97 Although the Grange was a strong advocate for the small family farm, this is no small feat. The far reaching influence of the Grange beneath Sehlmeyer continued to grow from 8,335 members in 1929, to 23,492 members in 1941.98 This makes the Grange’s stance on the small family farm significant and influential. Later, in 1947, Sehlmeyer and the Grange organized a statewide campaign, collecting signatures on a petition against ending the acreage limitation. The Grange was able to collect 10,000 signatures from home-owning farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. Sehlmeyer stated of the signers:
Because in some instances they feel, Mr. Chairman, because of filing of water by larger land holdings in some of these dams, it will impair their ability to get water…[in addition] there are some areas in the San Joaquin
93 Chambers, 14. 94 Ibid., 15. 95 Downey, They Would Rule the Valley, 12. 96 Hundley, The Great Thirst, 269. 97 Lee, “California Water Politics,”411. 98 Chambers, 17. 35 35 Valley where, if the large landed corporations get all the water they want and can use, there are some home-owning farmers who may be left without an adequate supply.99 Beginning in March of 1945, Sehlmeyer also led a new coalition called the Central Valley Project Conference (CVPC). Under Sehlmeyer’s leadership, the CVPC became a strong forum for harnessing public opinion, speaking particularly for “working farmers” and other groups such as: organized labor, veterans’ organizations, consumer cooperatives, and church groups. The CVPC, as a representative of these groups, stood in strong support of the Bureau and the family farm.”100 Through the State Grange and the CVPC, Sehlmeyer contributed to activism in support of the small family farm, as they diligently testified and organized on behalf of small farmers. However, Sehlmeyer’s efforts and the collective action of the State Grange and the CVPC were only one such example of the early grassroots organizing around maintenance of the acreage law in California’s Central Valley. Throughout this era, other groups spoke out and organized against repealing the law. These groups included small land owners who rallied around the Grange, and other groups including unions and related consumer groups. As historian Lawrence B. Lee stated, “Some envisioned the California Grange, the National Farmers Union, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, and the AFL and the CIO working to bring this about through appeal to the enduring agrarian myth homestead symbol.”101
99 Downey, 113. 100 Lee, “California Water Politics,” 411 in Willa K. Baum “Paul Schuster Taylor, California Water and Agricultural Labor an Interview,” Regional Cultural History Project, Bancroft Library, (University of California Berkeley, 1975). 101 Lee, “California Water Politics,” 411 in Henry Nash Smith, Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth (New York: Random House, 1957) 190-200; Also, Lawrence B. Lee, “William 36 36
And the homestead symbol would be an enduring and stubborn one. Arguments for and against the acreage limitation were strong, heated, and highly controversial. Even then Governor Earl Warren was a strong opponent of the acreage limitation, arguing for its repeal. The San Francisco Chronicle would publically support Gov. Warren in a 1947 editorial distinguishing the ways in which the Central Valley was exceptional from other reclamation projects of the West. One point in particular was stressed about “true reclamation” –reclamation as a means to irrigate arid lands which are intended for redistribution, not to irrigate lands which are already farmed, and have been owned in large tracts for generations. On this point, Warren stated, “But the importance of this 160-acre limitation into the Central Valley project where it has no justification, is an anomaly.”102 This idea was also supported by Fresno Attorney and representative for the National Reclamation Association, Gilbert Jertberg, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, “You must remember that the Central Valley has been largely privately owned for generations. It’s not ‘reclaimed land’.”103 Although many recognized the Central Valley had been bought, divided, farmed and firmly established beneath corporations and various families for generations by the time the CVP had been built, activists would not be deterred. The most outspoken critics would defend both the ethos and practicality of the acreage limitation, and believed the Central Valley deserved no special exemption.
Ellsworth Smythe and the Irrigation Movement: A Reconsideration,” Pacific Historical Review 41 (August, 1972): 289-311. 102 de Roos, The Thirsty Land, 83. 103 James E. Bassett Jr, “Water Limit Fight Stirs San Joaquin” March 17th, 1947, Los Angeles Times, 7. 37 37 Smaller Efforts Although many claimed reclamation policy should not apply within the Central Valley, as much of it had already been staunchly claimed and purchased by private owners, many groups of activists would not accept this premise, especially on the basis of moral conviction. In 1948 organized religious groups took a special interest in understanding and investigating the fundamentals of the reclamation issue. The general assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States and the committee on social education and action of the Synod of California joined together for a full year in order to investigate the law, in one of the largest studies undertaken. When the report was finally made public it stated that repealing the 160 acreage law would be a “moral problem,” as it “would strike at the heart of the family farm as the door would be opened for commercial operation of large areas, with government subsidy in irrigation. If this happens in California, a dangerous precedent is set for government-owned irrigated lands in other areas.”104 This religious concern reflects how important the acreage limitation law would be not only for small farmers, and even political activists, but for small groups concerned with both spiritual and emotional welfare and equality. In addition, various activists within religious groups, such as Reverend William J. Gibbons, (Associate Editor of the magazine America) testified on behalf of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference (NRLC) in 1947. Gibbons and the NRLC not only supported acreage limitation in the Central Valley, but also proposed it should set a national precedent, “The National Rural Life Conference would take the additional position that, far from repealing the acreage restriction either in the Central Valley Project or anywhere else, there should be
104 Helen Gahagan Douglas, “Moral Problem Involved in 160-Acre Repeal!” Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates on the 81st Congress, First Session. National Land for People Archive, California State University Fresno, Henry Madden Library, Special Collections, Box 1, Folder 1. 38 38 additional legislation to restrict ownership in any part of the country.”105 Social activist and economist Dr. Paul S. Taylor also echoed the significance of such support. According to Taylor, religious groups made a meaningful contribution to acreage limitation. He expressed the openness of many religious leaders in regard to acreage limitation. One example of such a leader was Father James L. Vizzard who heard Taylor speak in San Jose, California on agricultural issues. After becoming more knowledgeable on agricultural issues, Vizzard would go on to Washington to help create legislative changes and work with farm laborers.106 In addition to religious groups, veterans would be a significant group to support the acreage limitation. In particular, The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion both spoke out publically against amending acreage limitation. Representatives of such veterans groups such as Sam Hermann would go to Washington and speak before Congress.107 Many veteran organizations were concerned that if corporations were to dominate Valley lands through water allocation, small veterans hoping to establish homesteads on small tracts of land would be neglected, and their interests dominated by more powerful ones. This was a great fear of these organizations, as veterans had traditionally been given first priority to live and work on arable land.108 Other groups supporting acreage limitation included the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). Taylor sought out James Lorenz Jr. in Los Angeles’
105 Downey, 119. 106 Henry Madden Library, Special Collections at California State University Fresno. Paul S. Taylor to Suzanne B. Riess, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume I: Education, Field Research, and Family, The Bancroft Library, Regional Oral History Office, Earl Warren Oral History Project (Berkeley: Regents of the University of California), 195. 107 Paul S. Taylor to Suzanne B. Riess, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume I, 190. 108 Ibid., 184. 39 39
CRLA offices, in order to educate him in regard to the acreage limitation issue and gain his support. Lorenz, a Harvard Law graduate, was open to hearing more about the acreage limitation issue, and would later take more of an activist role. In later years, Lorenz would become so concerned with acreage limitation that he would become a leader in his own right to ensure acreage limitation would be applied to the California State Water Project.109
Helen Gahagan Douglas In addition to the activism of groups, a small group of noteworthy individuals became leaders in the fight for continued acreage limitation in California’s great Valley. Some of these individuals made a striking contribution to the fight, such as Helen Gahagan Douglas, who emerged as an important political leader in California, and would make the acreage limitation a key platform in her career. Douglas took a unique path to politics. She was born in 1900, grew up in Brooklyn, New York, and by the 1920’s would be appearing on Broadway shows.110 Upon moving to Los Angeles, California in the 1930’s, Douglas and her husband, film star Melvyn Douglas would become interested in politics. Helen especially would be increasingly drawn into the issues affecting California such as migrant labor and working conditions. She would attend various meetings on the subject, and would even begin to host them at her home, as she did the John Steinbeck Committee to Aid Migratory Workers in the late 1930s.111 Douglas would become further interested in such issues, offering to speak at public events,
109 Ibid, 193-194. 110 Ingrid Winther Scobie, Center Stage: Helen Gahagan Douglas, A Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). 111 Ibid., 106. 40 40 writing articles on California’s agricultural issues, and eventually replacing Carey McWilliams as committee chair and chief of the Division of Immigration and Housing in 1939.112 Douglas would emerge as a formidable leader in California politics. Her passion and conviction would be apparent to many, as it was to Arthur Goldschmidt who later recalled of his first impression of Douglas, “I found myself subjected to an intense cross-examination—grilling might not be too strong a word.”113 Douglas’ initial activism would be centered around California’s most pressing issues, including the economic conditions created by large-scale agriculture, migrant labor, and farmer’s grievances. Although California’s issues are what initially drew her into politics, these concerns would continue to serve as major platforms throughout her political career. Douglas’ political star would rise in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, especially with the support of Eleanor Roosevelt; she would be drawn into the Roosevelt’s inner circle and would contribute to various New Deal platforms. Throughout the early 1940’s she would serve in different leadership positions, including a membership on the National Advisory Committee for Community Service Projects as part of the Works Progress Administration.114 By 1944, Douglas’ political activities would culminate in a successful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from California’s 14th Congressional district, in which she would ultimately serve three more terms.
112 Scobie, 107. 113 Scobie, Center Stage, 107 in Arthur Goldschmidt, speech, Helen Douglas’s memorial service, December 2 1980, New York City, HMDP; David E. Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, vol. 1, The TVA Years (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 162. 114 Ibid., 113. 41 41
During her years in Congress, Douglas would continue to fight for the issues she cared about in California. As a member of Congress representing California, Douglas would make the 160 acreage limitation one of her main political platforms. In Congressional proceedings and debates she expressed the sentiment held by many regarding the importance of maintaining and upholding the acreage law. In a statement given to the House of Representatives in August of 1949, she echoed the growing support and ground swell of this agitation and political organization in support of acreage limitation throughout the 1940s.115 In a separate statement given to the House in June 1949, she reiterated the declarations made at the Central Valley project conference in Sacramento at the Governor’s Hall earlier that same year in April. Douglas expressed the frustration of many regarding the power of large corporate interests in the Valley. Douglas also expressed some of the shock Californian’s felt regarding the organization by various corporate interests to dismantle the acreage limitation.116 Douglas would tell the House, “By their present rule-or-ruin tactics, the big self-seeking power and land interest are betraying our State in its present crisis and seeking to sell out its golden opportunity for future greatness.”117 Throughout her tenure, Douglas would make a significant contribution in bringing this California battle into national awareness, helping to make the small farmer and maintenance of acreage limitation a relevant and stubborn issue which would not disappear.
115 Helen Gahagan Douglas, “Moral Problem” National Land for People. 116 Helen Gahagn Douglas, “Central Valley Project: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Helen Gahagan Douglas of California in the House of Representatives,” June 1, 1948. National Land for People Archive, California State University Fresno, Henry Madden Library, Special Collections, Box 12, Folder 1, p. 7. 117 Ibid., 8. 42 42
Eventually, Douglas would run a campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1950, challenging incumbent Sheridan Downey in the primary election. During the primary, Downey and Douglas would fight intensely over the 160 acre-limitation law. This law was of such importance to Downey that, although he would not be debating others, he challenged Douglas to a debate. Downey was very serious about confronting Douglas on her accusations that he—in particular—was depriving small farmers of their rights by opposing the acreage limitation. He called Douglas a “grandiose dreamer” and accused of her of “pushing aside more important issues” such as pensions, medical care, housing and labor in order to “base her campaign on the sole and single issue of the 160-acre water limitation in the Central Valley.”118 Douglas had little patience for Downey, as she felt he was a “‘menace’ to society, sold out to the oil powers, and a threat to the heart of California’s past and future, the small farmer.”119 The race so cemented Douglas’ position on acreage limitation that many even felt she was speaking about it too much, fearful she was politicizing it to the determent of other pressing issues. Douglas however was undeterred; she would not abandon her allegiance to the small farmer.120 Downey would eventually withdraw from the election, leaving Douglas as the party’s nominee—and the soon-to-be opponent of Richard M. Nixon. Nixon would eventually defeat her and win the Senate seat. Despite this, Douglas’ contribution to maintenance of the acreage limitation law was crucial. As a political leader who garnered national attention and support, she had visibility,
118 Found in, “Sen. Downey Challenges Mrs. Douglas to Debate,” Los Angeles Times, Dec 7, 1949, A1. 119 Scobie, Center Stage, 225. 120 Ibid., 235. 43 43 respectability, and influence. The issues Douglas cared about were issues both Californians and Americans took notice of. Even in a campaign for a prestigious U.S. Senate seat, Douglas would not desert her convictions or ideals, especially when others criticized her. She not only contributed to keep the 160 acreage limitation as a viable issue, but also challenged those with power who sought to dismantle its legitimacy. Helen Gahagan Douglas’s activism cannot, therefore, be underestimated. She not only played a crucial role in preventing the historic 160 acreage limitation law from being amended or eliminated completely—but also devoted much of her life’s work, both politically and personally to it and all that it symbolized for California.
Paul S. Taylor It is nearly certain no other person did quite as much in the fight for acreage limitation as Economist and University of California, Berkeley Professor Paul S. Taylor. Taylor was a leader among the politicians, activists, and small organized groups which would emerge to support maintenance of acreage limitation. Taylor made the plight of the small farmer and agricultural worker in the San Joaquin his own. He not only contributed a large amount of research and substantial scholarship on the topic, but also helped to politically organize small groups of activists who were deeply concerned with equality, fairness, and justice in the fields. His dedication to the cause helped to bring about political visibility and legal protection for both farming and working conditions, which would make an impact to be honored and discussed in decades to follow. Regarding acreage limitation, Taylor stated, “…It wouldn’t be an issue in the courts and Congress today if I, with the people who had supported me, had not worked at it. It is an 44 44 issue today because we had enough victories to make it an issue.”121 The prevention of monopoly dominance within the lands of the Central Valley would be an issue on which Taylor would write extensively on, and it would consume a substantial amount of his academic work. In particular, he was part of the fight to maintain the Reclamation Law and to resist corporate domination within the Central Valley until his death. Born in Sioux City, Iowa, Taylor was a Midwesterner who would graduate from the University of Wisconsin. As an undergraduate, he would abandon his studies to serve in World War I, an experience which would change him profoundly. Awarded a Purple Heart, and witness to incredible human devastation, he narrowly escaped death at Bouresches-Belleau Wood.122 During the war Taylor would temporarily face blindness and breathing problems due to the effects of mustard gas exposure. He would return home to the United States deeply affected by the conditions and suffering he experienced in the war. After relocating to California to pursue a doctoral degree at the University of California, Berkeley, he became more invested in the agricultural and economic conditions in California.123 Taylor was no stranger to the communal values inherent in the Populist convictions he grew up with in the Midwest near the turn of the century. Throughout his life he had maintained a consistently keen interest in the social conditions created by labor and economy. As historian Jan Goggans described, “Taylor’s nostalgic memory includes all the elements that would ultimately shape
121 Paul S. Taylor to Suzanne B. Riess, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume I, 178. 122 Jan Goggans, California on the Breadlines: Dorothea Lange, Paul Taylor and the Making of a New Deal Narrative (Berkeley: University of California, 2010), 9. 123 Ibid., 11. 45 45 his response to labor in California’s fields: the communal nature of agricultural labor at harvest, the stark contrast between seasonal, migratory laborers and permanent stewards of the land, and the near idyllic system of true exchange labor.”124 This communal and populist ethos would profoundly impact Taylor, establishing within him a strong conviction for equality in regard to the relationship Americans shared with their land. It is no wonder, then, that after relocating to California, Taylor would be highly critical and personally affected by the large scale agricultural production and its effects upon labor within California’s Central Valley. Subsequently, he would pay special academic attention to the labor and social conditions created by such production, as well as the disparities experienced by Mexican laborers in California in contrast to those who worked on small farms. The majority of Taylor’s research, beginning in the late 1920s and early 1930s, would be focused upon the plight of Central Valley agriculture and its related labor conditions, as well as the social, political, and economic implications. In these early years as a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, he would spend over two years in the field interviewing farm laborers and other growers, something which would often put him at odd with the larger financial interests of the Valley who had invested in Berkeley.125 Despite this, Taylor was able to maintain his convictions and research priorities in the San Joaquin. The motivations behind such academic passions were not mysterious considering what he had experienced and endured in his past. He once stated World War I had: “taught him ‘to bear a responsibility for the lives of others.’”126 This
124 Goggans, 45. 125 Ibid., 69-70. 126 Ibid., 12. 46 46 humanitarian spirit would continue to drive his academic work and pursuits for decades to come. Due to the direction his research interests took him, Taylor would meet and then marry Depression-Era photographer Dorothea Lange. Lange was no stranger to the dire poverty out West, as she, like Taylor, was intimate with the conditions of the Valley. Together they would work on the federally funded Farm Security Administration project, documenting the conditions faced by migratory farmers escaping the Dust Bowl. The project would become their classic, An American Exodus, which would ultimately garner national attention for both of them.127 Taylor and Lange also worked closely with social activist George Ballis, who would later emerge as a community leader in the fight against corporate domination of water throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Taylor and these smaller, lesser known groups helped to organize and push forward substantial resistance and political activism to uphold and honor the acreage law, beginning in the late 1930s and lasting well into the early 1950s. Taylor was an academic, but he was not confined to the implications of such work. Of equal importance is that he was also a social activist, and participated greatly in educating various organizations on the acreage limitation issue. Taylor would talk at length about his activism, especially the variety of ways in which he repudiated the larger political interests who sought to overturn acreage limitation. Taylor’s leadership efforts would comprise a variety of activities. He was thoroughly involved in connecting with a variety of influential groups, both
127 Matt Garcia, “The Road Not Taken in Farm Worker Justice: Paul Taylor and Ben Yellen, ‘Foundations of California Rural Society’,” California History 91, no.1 (Spring 2014): 48-57. 47 47 formally and informally. He was largely responsible for seeking out and educating a variety of influential groups. Taylor would walk into their offices, call them, or ask to speak to them about acreage limitation. He would encourage them to appear at upcoming Senate Committee Hearings—advising them to share their opinion on acreage limitation. Due to his activism he would become extremely well connected to a variety of individuals, both with and without political clout. Although Taylor was busy with his own research and teaching at University of California, Berkeley, he was not afraid of exerting his influence as a citizen. As he stated, “Do you want to hear about the ways of getting things done? You see, on the one hand you have the issue as an abstract political issue. On the other hand is the participant. I have been a participant; I’ve played a role. Some things wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t happened to be at a certain place at a certain time.”128 Without his leadership it is difficult to say exactly how acreage limitation would have been perceived by Senate Committees, California special interests, and other communities. Aside from his enormous contribution as a social organizer, he also devoted research to different aspects of reclamation within the Central Valley. This would reflect his activism and desire to educate the public on some of the nuances and otherwise hidden issues regarding acreage limitation. For instance, in “The 160- Acre Limitation and the Water Resources Commission” published in 1950, he identified the flaws and inconsistencies of governmental oversight.129 Taylor argued for reform of certain enforcement elements, such as placing responsibility
128 Paul S. Taylor to Suzanne B. Riess, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume I, 179. 129 Taylor, “The 160-Acre Water Limitation,” 435-450. 48 48 for water construction and enforcement of acreage limitation under the same organization. The Army Corp of Engineers and the Bureau both had oversight authority, a factor which he identified as troubling and ineffective, especially since the Army Engineers were generally more lax.130 Taylor’s activism is apparent throughout the article, as he attempts to educate and inform the public regarding such subtleties of water allocation issues, and the improper enforcement practices on a variety of governmental levels. Corporate abuse of power and the ability of corporate interests to escape oversight of the acreage limitation was a factor he stressed, while emphasizing the importance of an informed, active and assertive public.131 In “Central Valley Project: Water and Land,” published in 1949, Taylor would describe the varying political interests involved in the project. To dispute the implications of large scale land ownership patterns within the Valley, Taylor would discuss the intent the original supporters of the bill had envisioned for the West. He wrote, “…the Congress of 1902 was deliberating over something far greater than financial equities between government and some of its citizens. It was concerned with the relations between man and man, with the development of a sense of community, with the forms and institutions of American society.”132 Many individuals who opposed acreage limitation would argue it was unrealistic, and unenforceable. Although Taylor’s research might not have been widely circulated in the popular press, or outside of academic circles, his work created some awareness regarding the history of acreage limitation in California. He helped to create conversations and small connected communities through both his
130 Taylor, 440-441. 131 Ibid, 443, 449. 132 Taylor, “Central Valley Project: Water and Land,” 241. 49 49 academic work and social activism. He also took special care to honor the work of the activists and small farmers who sought to uphold acreage limitation. As he wrote:
Since its inauguration in 1902, that policy has been upheld by more than a dozen Congresses of both parties in 1906, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1937, 1938, 1940 and 1943. Besides, every attempt to secure an exemption from acreage limitation for particular reclamation projects has ended in defeat if it was forced to run in the gauntlet of public hearings.133 These articles were only a few examples of Taylor’s dedication to resist publically the consistent and continued efforts to amend, if not completely eliminate the 160 acreage law in the Central Valley. Although Taylor came from an academic world, he was not confined to the world of research and teaching. It was his intention to make his research accessible to a wide audience in a variety of forums.134 Taylor’s leadership would inspire a variety of organized citizen groups to agitate and rally around the 160 acreage limitation law. The public commentary, political legislation, and social organizing around the acreage law was by and large immensely connected to Taylor’s work. Without his initiative, concern and political activities it is difficult to say how successful activists would have been in California’s great Valley as they fought for acreage limitation. Although Taylor’s collection of work is the most extensive and very likely the most exhaustive of this early era—, others such as Varden Fuller also attempted to make contributions to the growing collection of academic work and critique regarding the acreage law. Fuller wrote articles dating back to 1949, such as one for the University of California titled, “Acreage Limitation in Federal
133 Taylor, “The 160-Acre Water Limitation,” 438. 134 Richard Street, “The Economist as Humanist: The Career of Paul S. Taylor” California History 58, no. 4 (Winter 1979/1980): 357. 50 50
Irrigation,” in which he compared the acreage law of 1902 to its then current state in the late 1940s. There had been substantial changes and amendments to the original law, issues Fuller spoke out against. He concluded his article by critiquing portion of profit which would be made to benefit private owners at the expense and cost to the public. Fuller called for a solution to organize an equal division and handling of such wealth and profit.135 Fuller’s scholarship shows Paul S. Taylor was not the only scholar to engage in research and scholarly writing regarding the Reclamation Law. Well into the 1940s, a number of individuals sought to publish their findings regarding lack of oversight and the need for continued enforcement, education, and activism regarding the 160 acreage law.
Counter-Resistance: Sheridan Downey and Claire Engle Although there certainly was strong activism among a variety of individuals and groups opposed to changing the acreage limitation law, theirs is but one side of the narrative. The counter-resistance to acreage limitation also has a place within this story. Senators such as Sheridan Downey and Claire Engle were two of the most visible in terms of opposing acreage limitation, and their influence helped to inflame the acreage limitation issue. Although their success is debatable, they nonetheless made an impact by engaging with activists through their public counter-arguments to the limitation, and various legislative efforts which are discussed below. Sheridan Downey, a Democratic senator from California, is a key figure in understanding the early agitation and protest revolving around the issue. Downey wrote a small, but significant book titled, They Would Rule the Valley, which was
135 Varden Fuller. “Acreage Limitation in Federal Irrigation Projects with Particular Reference to the Central Valley Project of California,” Journal of Farm Economics 31, no. 4, part 2 (Nov. 1949): 982. 51 51 published in 1947.136 Downey’s book could be read as a manifesto for repeal of acreage limitation, publically addressing the issues raised by Taylor and other resistors. As a strong advocate for amending and expanding the acreage limitation of the Reclamation Law, he echoed the sentiments of many larger growers. For instance, Downey was well known for frequently arguing that the acreage law would be nearly impossible to enforce. As he argued, “everyone knows that the acreage limitation cannot be enforced in the Central Valley”137 Downey argued for the abundance of river water in various localities as a good reason for elimination of the 160 acre limitation law. Downey labeled those who were pushing for the continued enforcement of the acreage law as propagandists and manipulators: “Can it be true that they succeeded in deceiving intelligent and sincere leaders in national and state organizations—church, labor, veteran, farm, and other civic groups—into accept their warped viewpoint and expounding it?”138 Downey would invest himself heavily in additional counter-activism, making himself present at a variety of hearings, and offering public statements to counter the arguments made by small activists groups. Downey’s influence was wide, as he was quite well connected, but he was not the only one to take this active counter-resistance stance. As the 1950s pushed on, California Congressmen Claire Engle also took a prominent role in speaking out against acreage limitation, introducing the “Engle formula,” also known as HR 5881. This would provide exemption of the 160- acreage law through payment of interest charges. Engle would introduce the “Engle formula” otherwise known as HR 5881, which would provide exemption
136 Downey, They Would Rule the Valley, 1947. 137 Ibid., 231 138 Ibid., 232. 52 52 of the 160-acreage law through payment of interest charges.139 Engle had influence as a leader from 1954-1968, a time when Engle was able to help create friends and allies within the Federal Government after the Central Valley Project expanded into the Westlands Water District.140 Engle was well aware of the controversial nature of the 160 acre limitation law, and the extent to which it could ignite public reaction. As Engle stated, “I grant you, you start kicking the 160 Acre Limitation and it is like inspecting the rear end of a mule: you want to do it from a safe distance because you might get kicked through the side of the barn. But it can be done with circumspection, and I hope we can exercise circumspection.”141 In 1959 Engle would propose a bill from the Interior Committee to give “home rule” to California in its handling of water. According to Senator Paul H. Douglas, (who opposed the bill), Section 6A of this new bill would allow the large landowners to receive federal water from the CVP and earn hundreds of millions, and even billions of dollars.142 According to Douglas, 160 acres “was more than ample in the lush lands of the Central Valley where oranges, lemons, grapes, nuts, lettuce, celery, once given water, would grow in profusion.”143 Douglas was able to win over allies in Congress including Senator Wayne Morse, and Representative Albert C. Ullman. Although it came as a surprise to Douglas, they had an initial victory, defeating the
139 Worster, Rivers of Empire, 289. 140 Lee, “California Water Politics,” 404. 141 David Seckler, and Robert A. Young, “Economic and Policy Implications of the 160-Acre Limitation in Federal Reclamation Law” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, No. 4 (Nov., 1978), 578 in Paul S. Taylor, 253, “The 160 Acre Law” California Water ed. David Seckler, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971, pp 251-62. 142 Paul H. Douglas, In the Fullness of Time: The Memoirs of Paul H. Douglas (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971), 369. 143 Ibid. 53 53 efforts to repeal the Reclamation Act through section 6A.144 Although there would be continued efforts to amend the Reclamation law, and numerous defeats to follow for small groups and activists, these early victories were substantial. These activists were up against political opposition from those who were well connected to large scale agricultural growers, especially those who had enormous influence and backing, yet they remained steadfast. Not only did they face individuals such as Engle and Downey, but also, the growing complacency of the Bureau, and the soon to be memory of Harold Ickes & FDR’s strong federal support, regardless, they continued on. In fact, by 1950 the 160-acre limitation law would be so “hot” that the Bureau would announce no plans to extend the CVP into the southwest side of the San Joaquin Valley, as this is where many of the larger landowners were.145
Conclusion The Reclamation Law, introduced at the turn-of-the-century, remained significant throughout the 1940s and 1950s, as Americans in the West refused to let the ideals embodied in it become obsolete, especially in a changing landscape full of man-made aqueducts and large agricultural corporations which had come to dominate life in the Central Valley. However, maintenance of the Reclamation Law was not only about protecting the small farmer or equitable distribution of water. It was also about economic fairness.
144 Douglas, 369. 145 Henry Madden Library, Special Collections at California State University Fresno. Paul S. Taylor to Malca Chall, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume III: California Water and Agricultural Labor, The Bancroft Library, Regional Oral History Office, Earl Warren Oral History Project (Berkeley: Regents of the University of California), 347. Erwin Cooper is credited with making this argument in his text, Aqueduct Empire, although it is not directly cited. 54 54
Many who fought to repeal the acreage limitation felt it was unrealistic and unnecessary within the Central Valley. The Valley had a culture of its own, and its land had been seized, purchased, and cultivated nearly a century earlier. Farmers and growers alike for nearly three generations had developed an entitlement in regard to their ownership of land and access to water. Many argued the family farm, let alone the 160 acre limitation was no longer a practical or realistic concept, especially in the Valley. Despite this, activists would not yield to the larger economic forces. California in the twentieth century would not be determined by the whims nor the ambitions of large agricultural corporations and growers. Instead, it would be affected by the activism of small organized groups who kept themselves informed and engaged in the various interests seeking to dominate the agricultural and economic bread basket of California, and the greater United States.
CHAPTER 3: WESTLANDS AND THE 1960S
As we have seen, monopoly by corporations was always a concern in regard to the 160 acre limitation law. One of the driving forces behind the collective organization and activism against its repeal was the prevention of corporate interests dominating the Valley, something which would be at the expense of both smaller farmers and the taxpayers who were subsidizing them. The fears of these groups were not unfounded, as a study by the USDA in 1945 revealed sixty percent of irrigable landholders in Madera, Tulare, and Kern counties owned tracts in excess of 160 acres, many of them held by corporations.146 Of special significance were the massive landholdings on the West side of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, as nearly 700,000 acres were owned by banks, oil companies, railroads, and food processing companies in what is currently considered the Westlands Water District.147 The Westlands Water District takes on a special role within the story of the San Joaquin Valley. The “Westlands” is one of the largest irrigation districts within the United States, located in the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley, including both western Fresno and Kings counties.148 The Westlands would encompass a coalition of West Side growers and landowners, who would form the Westside Landowners Association in order to push their cause of receiving water from Northern California rivers in 1942.149 By 1952, the growers would
146 Lee, “California Water Politics,” 412 in U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Land Ownership Survey on Federal Reclamation Projects (Washington: GPO, 1946): 29-53. 147 Ibid., 160. 148 Lloyd G. Carter, “Reaping Riches in a Wretched Region: Subsidized Industrial Farming and its Link to Perpetual Poverty.” Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal (2009) Vol. 3. Issue 1, 6. 149 Ibid., 11. 56 56 officially form the Westlands Water District, per the California Water Code, an organization which would now be responsible for providing water needs to the surrounding areas. Westlands growers however, were more interested in receiving federally subsidized irrigation for their own land.150 The Westlands would include land owners and growers: Jack O’Neill, John Harris, Frank Diener, Harry Baker, Louis Robinson, the Boswell family and Russell Giffen, whose father Willey Giffen, founded Sun Maid Raisin.151 Russell Giffen alone owned nearly 100,000 acres.152
The San Luis Reservoir According to Jack Woolf (member of the Westlands Board of Directors), after the Westlands became an official district, it had been the assumption of the district coalition that it would not be subjected to the acreage limitation law if it were to receive federal water.153 Despite this, board members would be inconsistent and unclear in their public understanding of the Reclamation law.154 According to Paul S. Taylor, since many of the larger land owners had not been able to receive federal water throughout the 1940’s, it took them a substantial amount of time to politically maneuver for approval of federal water, since landholdings were greatly in excess of the 160-acre limitation.155 Although many Westlands growers owned in excess of the 160 acre limitation, they nonetheless
150 Mary Louise Frampton, “The Enforcement of Federal Reclamation Law in the Westlands Water District: A Broken Promise.” U.C. Davis Law Review, Vol. 13, (1979): 94. 151 Carter, Reaping Riches, 11. 152 Ibid. 153 Jack Woolf interview, Holyoke. 154 Paul S. Taylor to Malca Chall, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume II, 271. 155 Ibid, 271. 57 57 continued to blueprint plans for a new reservoir to be built in the region. It was hoped the new reservoir would transport water from San Francisco’s Delta south, to the Westlands. In 1958, Representative Bernie F. Sisk, who represented this region, would ask Congress to approve this new Bureau project, now called the San Luis Reservoir. During congressional hearings Sisk would emphasize the amount of growth the region would experience as a result of the project and its supply of abundant water, which would create massive productivity and a “bounty of fertile lands.”156 The San Luis Reservoir would subsequently be approved. By 1958, Westlands landowners would begin conceiving of potential legal loop-holes in order to receive water. Taylor described one such strategy as “tactical compromise,” a maneuver which would divide the water distributed by the San Luis Reservoir. “On the ‘federal’ San Luis service area,” they said, “acreage limitation will apply” but state law would apply to lands served by the state.157 This would benefit large growers as many of them could claim to be exempt from federal oversight, and the acreage limitation law. Although such tactics were occurring, many small activist groups were aware of the attempts by Westlands growers to exempt themselves from acreage limitation. This is evident throughout recorded testimony of congressional hearings which took place when the San Luis bill was before the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The San Luis Bill would, “run into a barrage of resistance over the clause that would exempt state-irrigated land from limitation.”158 According to historian Lawrence B. Lee, the San Luis Bill hearings
156 Carter, “Reaping Riches in a Wretched Region,” 12 in Hearing on S. 44, supra. 157 Paul S. Taylor to Malca Chall, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume II, 271. 158 Lee, “California Water Politics,” 418. 58 58 would include “impressive representation” from the National Farmers Union, the National Grange, the NCRLC, and the AFL-CIO. The presence of such groups, and their sustained dedication to protecting the acreage limitation was evident. Lee further stated, “It was the 1944 and 1947 congressional battle for acreage limitation all over again.”159 Such coalitions reflected the steadfastness of activist groups in maintenance of acreage limitation, even as water development continued to grow, expanding under the oversight of new water districts, such as Westlands. Moreover, Taylor, in conjunction with other activist groups, continued to be a political presence well into the 1960s. For instance, in 1964, hearings would take place before the Senate Interior Committee. Taylor, and Dorothea Lange appeared, as did Father James L. Vizzard (a Jesuit representing the National Catholic Conference on Rural Life). Taylor would recall as a result of such activist agitation and presence, “the Bureau of Reclamation did make a change in our favor in the government contract with the Westland Water District.”160
Activism The San Luis development would also elicit a shift in the social agitation from organized groups in the Valley. One of the leaders to emerge from this movement would be labor journalist and advocate George Ballis, who had previously been a photographer, and who had studied closely with Dorothea Lange. Ballis had captured and recorded worker life throughout the fields of the Central Valley, and he took a special interest in advocating for workers rights. Tall, folksy, lanky and unassuming, thirty-three year old George Ballis travelled to
159 Ibid., 419. 160 Paul S. Taylor to Malca Chall, 1973, in Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Volume II, 278. 59 59
Washington D.C. in 1958 when the San Luis bill was on the floor of the Senate. Ballis attended the hearings as part of his three-person group, the “Western Water Users Council,” in order to stop passage of the bill. Part of the bill contained a passage which would have exempted Westlands from the 1902 Reclamation Law. Ballis, armed with thirty-six maps, found Senators Wayne Morse and Paul Douglas, and showed them the massive Westlands landholdings held by corporations and trusts, all of which clearly violated the 160 acreage principle for receiving federal water. Morse and Douglas became so agitated they filibustered the bill when it came to the floor of the Senate. Out of frustration, since passing the bill became so difficult, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson suggested removing the exemption from the bill. Although the San Luis Reservoir was to be built, this was a huge victory for Ballis, and his small group, illustrating the beginning of a new era of activism in support of the Reclamation Law and its 160 limitation within the San Joaquin.161 Considering the amount of public agitation and outspokenness of small groups and leaders throughout the Central Valley, it should come as no surprise that the Westlands Water District would not be exempted from the Reclamation Law, despite their efforts to the contrary. This would also mean that Westlands would also not be exempt from any of the social agitation or collective action which had already made a presence in the Valley. As a result of the new awareness regarding the massive land holdings, in order to receive federal water from The San Luis Reservoir, landowners now had to sell their excess lands within ten years of receiving water. Many landowners signed contracts promising to sell
161 George Ballis (Former Director, National Land for People) interview by Dr. Thomas Holyoke, 2010, California State University, Fresno. 60 60 to eligible buyers the land they owned in excess of the 160 acre limitation.162 It was the hope of activists involved in the Westlands that this land would be sold to smaller farmers and growers, and many families were eager to purchase such land.163
Land Break-up The breaking up and selling of large land holdings took on significance within the Westlands. Many believed breaking up the larger land holdings would stimulate the economy, as crop yields and profits would increase. Additionally, smaller farms would thrive and prosper. By 1976, Ralph Brody, Westlands’ counsel, declared 109,000 excess acres had been sold to 928 individuals.164 However many small farmers claimed that Westlands was not complying with the law and, in fact, land dealings were occurring on paper only, through careful maneuvering and manipulation. Russell Giffen, one of Westlands’ key leaders came under close scrutiny as it was suspected he had sold his land to a “hand- picked circle of cronies and ‘partnerships,’ many of them giving the same last name and the same address, which also happened to be the office of one John Bonadelle, a Fresno land speculator.”165 George Ballis, who had already been an outspoken activist in the Westlands, became even more agitated after small farmers who tried to purchase land within the District were denied.166 As a result, Ballis took stronger initiative, and officially established National Land for People ( NLP) in 1974 with an office based in Fresno, California. From the NLP office,
162 Frampton, 95. 163 Ibid., 95. 164 Worster, Rivers of Empire, 292-293. 165 Ibid., 294. 166 Frampton, 94. 61 61
Ballis and his small staff made community activism the organization’s priority, and began to investigate the land-dealings within the Westlands, making sure the federal government was enforcing compliance with the law. Although the Bureau was responsible for enforcing 160-acre limitation in the Westlands, “technical compliance” prevented complete enforcement. Technical compliance had come to mean large land holders could receive federal water if they subdivided their land into 160 acre tracts beneath the ownership of differing individuals. However, many of the larger landowners would use members of the same family, false names, or other confusing legal arrangements. NLP would begin to investigate such landholdings which were not in full compliance with the 160 acre law.167 National Land for People (NLP) was doing more than policing the Bureau and its water distribution to Westlands. It was also concerned with the equity and fairness of farming culture within the Central Valley, a culture from which the economy of the Valley depended upon. The very public and visible activism of NLP made many issues related to large-scale corporate agricultural production more visible and concerning to Valley citizens. Further, NLP’s activism served as a spring-board to discuss the larger economic, social, and political inequalities which Ballis and many activists like him believed were caused by the corporate agricultural production which had come to dominate life in California’s Central Valley. Ballis and others were not just fighting political wars in Washington D.C.—they were fighting ideological wars too. Their actions were political in that they were taking action in various venues such as the State legislature and the United States Congress, speaking out about the Reclamation Law of 1902, and the
167 Frampton, 95. 62 62 importance of its enforcement even in the 1960’s and 1970s. Their battles were also ideological—because they were fighting for the values and rights of the small farmer, the individual American who they believed should be supported and protected in the process of building an autonomous, productive, and fruitful life on the land. Meanwhile, Ballis and his team put in long days and long hours, embarking upon a self-made media tour with limited financial resources. Passionate about upholding the legal promise of 160 acres for federal water, Ballis was up against the strong political alliances between politicians, big agricultural business interests, and governmental agencies.168 Activist and economist Paul S. Taylor stressed that these financial interests created a “perpetual water machine” and groups of “manipulators of pork-barrel water politics in Congress” concerning the West, something which only the federal courts could truly check.169 Activists like Ballis were not merely protesting or agitating with limited results. The consequences of their actions had wide reaching implications. As a result of their activism, they helped to affect national awareness regarding equitable distribution of federally subsidized water. This would subsequently bring attention to other issues connected to large scale agricultural production, and many Valley citizens were alarmed. As historian Donald Worster stated, “Why the Bureau or Congress would underwrite such extravagant welfare for a rich elite should by now not require any explanation. What none of the parties involved quite expected was the hullabaloo, the demands for investigation raised over the Westlands project.”170 Despite the
168 Lee, “California Water Politics,” 419. 169 Ibid, 419. 170 Worster, Rivers of Empire, 295. 63 63 struggles NLP was up against, they succeeded in elevating the consciousness in the Valley regarding the Westlands, and what the effects may be of such large scale, tax-payer, and subsidized water. And despite the 160-acre law having been a public battle for nearly thirty years at this point, citizens were still upset to realize the inequality experienced in the Western portion of the San Joaquin Valley.
1975 Congressional Testimony In the midst of the controversy surrounding the Bureau for failure to fully enforce the 160-acre limitation due to various methods of, “technical compliance,” National Land for People, decided to take strong action against the Bureau for failing to honor the 160 acreage limitation law. During the summer of 1975, George Ballis with his wife Maia, farm worker Jessie de la Cruz, and other members of NLP travelled to Washington D.C. to testify before a special session of Congress. Their testimony there sparked national awareness, concern and debate regarding the importance of the family farm and the possible need for federal protection. Jerome R. Waldie, a Washington representative of Friends of the Earth, a conservation organization based in San Francisco stated, “The incredible tolerance and neglect of the Congress over these many years of this private exploitation of public resources is inexplicable.”171 This statement would set the tone for the others that would follow. George Ballis’ testimony in particular garnered much attention. Ballis discussed the efficiency of small farms, citing various studies, including a U.S. Department of Agriculture study which found 200-400 acres to be an efficient size
171 Jerome R. Waldie, to Select Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, July 17 and 22 1975, 94th Congress, First Session on Will The Family Farm Survive in America? Part I: Federal Reclamation Policy (Westlands Water District), 176. 64 64 for production of cotton.172 Ballis also discussed the labor-intensity of smaller farms, which meant they needed less energy or fossil fuel consumption. In addition, Ballis stressed the importance of water as a source of wealth within the arid San Joaquin Valley, arguing that “I have lived in Fresno for over twenty-two years. About twenty years ago I became interested in federal reclamation because it is obvious out our way that irrigation is the source of our wealth and the root of the economic and political power of our state.”173 Ballis continued to stress the key role irrigation held in economic production and wealth in the San Joaquin Valley, arguing that without irrigation, very little would be capable of growing aside from “winter grains, a few grass-fed cows and a lot of sagebrush.” Ballis continued, “the San Joaquin Valley is the richest farmland in all the history of man.”174 Other issues addressed at the hearing included the importance of the family farm as an opportunity for advancement and betterment in the United States. Statements from such individuals as Berge Bulbulian, President of NLP, chronicled the advances made by his family within only one generation due to work on their family farm. His father, a refugee from Armenia was illiterate, and had no money upon fleeing to California in the 1920s. He described how his mother, a poor field worker gave birth in a slum. His parents struggled immensely, yet due to their hard work on the family farm, they were able to provide Berge with the economic foundation he needed to be successful, something evident by his own life story and that of his own children, as his three
172 Ballis, to Select Committee, 59. 173 Ibid., 60. 174 Ibid. 65 65 daughters were enrolled in universities.175 Sentiments such as this honored the family farm, as it continued to be one of the only ways in which immigrants and other Americans could have a chance at a better life. These stories would reflect the importance of protecting such farms, and how crucial it would be for the government to do so, instead of the more powerful agricultural companies which promoted wage-labor and economic dependence. Ballis and NLP not only argued to the courts the importance of the family farm, but also provided evidence that the Bureau of Reclamation had failed to enforce the 160 acreage law, something demonstrated by Ballis’ and NLP’s extensive work and research. Evidence would include various charts, maps, graphs and statistics all demonstrating the scope of Ballis’ research throughout the previous ten years.176 Ballis would bring nearly “thirty-five detailed charts explaining the questionable land transactions” which NLP had discovered.177 NLP was not alone in their sentiment. The director of the National Farmers Union also confirmed, “The purposes of the limitation law have been largely ignored. It appears that every subterfuge imaginable has been used in the Westlands Water District to sabotage honest and sincere enforcement.”178 Other issues discussed were the inability of small farmers to purchase land from within the District. According to testimony, one real estate agent provided a list of 303 individuals
175 Berge Bulbulian, to Select Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, July 17 and 22 1975, 94th Congress, First Session on Will The Family Farm Survive in America? Part I: Federal Reclamation Policy (Westlands Water District), 165. 176 Ballis to Select Committee, 60-63 177 Frampton, 96. 178 Frampton, “The Enforcement of Federal Reclamation Law,” 100 in Joint Hearings, supra note 1 2d Sess. at 210. 66 66 who had made cash offers for land in small tracts, but who had been denied due to lack of compliance from otherwise potential sellers.179 Although Congress did not act, this testimony created a stir. There would be a new national awareness regarding the Reclamation Law, the Westlands Water District, and the economic disparity experienced in the lands of the Valley.
National Land for the People, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation In the following year, during May 1976, NLP and George Ballis decided to sue the Bureau of Reclamation for failing to enforce the law. According to a 2010 interview with Ballis, NLP decided bring suit in a district court in Washington D.C., for they felt they had no chance of winning if filed in Fresno. Ballis was able to pool enough money and support for the case from many who were not even directly associated with the Central Valley or water, such as a youth organization based out of San Francisco, California.180 NLP would seek a preliminary injunction to stop the federal government from approving any more land sales in the Westlands. This small case ended up being a great victory for NLP, as the courts ruled in their favor.181 The rationale for the ruling in National Land for the People, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, would result in the issued injunction, preventing approval for any further land deals. Subsequently, the federal government established new rules for the Bureau, forcing stronger oversight and break-up of the large land holdings. Specifically, there would be a suspension of
179 Frampton, “The Enforcement of Federal Reclamation Law,” 100 in Joint Hearings, supra note 1 2d Sess. at 210. 180 Ballis, interview, Holyoke. 181 Ibid. 67 67 approval of excess land in all reclamation regions until regulations around the 160- acre limitation could be more clearly defined.182
Activists and Small Farmers Along with the various groups involved were key individuals active in many different organizations. One such individual was farm worker Jessie de la Cruz, who had been active in United Farm Workers with Cesar Chavez, and later became an officer for National Land for People. Cruz was an important figure as she had been a field worker for nearly all of her life; her story illustrated the struggles faced by many who sought to better themselves, to find a life of self sufficiency, physical and emotional well being, and economic stability, things which farm workers often struggle to attain despite the amount of the physical labor they exhaust. Cruz testified in 1975 before the Select Committee with NLP, discussing the economic and social conditions large scale agricultural business had created, and the inequity behind such conditions including low wages, seasonal work, slum like living conditions, and high rates of alcohol and drug abuse.183 Cruz’s testimony emphasized the importance of the 160-acre limitation, and the benefits that smaller family farms provide to individuals and communities alike. Jessie de la Cruz’s testimony helped to illuminate the economic productivity of smaller farms. Cruz’s testimony also helped to support the idea that small acreages can be profitable if properly worked. Upon purchasing only six acres, Cruz’s family was able to plant cherry tomatoes and hot chilies, and
182 Frampton, “The Enforcement of Federal Reclamation Law,” 102. 183 Gary Soto, Jessie De La Cruz: A Profile of a United Farm Worker, (New York: Persea Books, Inc., 2000) 106-108. 68 68 within one harvest was able to generate sixty-four thousand dollars.184 By demonstrating the efficiency, productivity, and economic profit of such small acreage—Cruz was able to argue against the critics who claimed the United States was in a new era of farming, one in which large corporate farms were the only advantageous, reliable, and profitable way to farm in the twentieth century, justifying federal subsidizes to large agricultural corporations.185 Other special interest groups and small factions would take special interest in investigating the economic strength of the small farm tract. One such study came out of the University of California, Davis in 1976. In “Small-Scale Farming in the Westland’s: A Rural Land Appraisal” George Ely, Jim Gray and March Leiwand investigated the economic worth of 160 acres, considering the real economic costs and practical concerns with which farmers must contend. Undertaking a rural land appraisal, the researchers concluded that a family farm of 160 to 320 acres could generate an annual cash income of anywhere from 24,362.00 to 42, 602.00 dollars.186 Their study concluded, “Our assumption is that the development of family farming in the Westlands, resulting from a drastic change in the current pattern of large land holdings in the area, would be beneficial to the area.”187 This academic interest in the viability and practicality of the 160 acre limitation reflects how sustained the concern for the small farmer would continue to be, even well into the 1970s. Like others had done in previous
184 Kenneth M. Coughlin, ed. “Perspectives on the Structure of American Agriculture: Volume I: The View from the Farm- Special Problems of Minority and Low-Income Farmers.” Jessie de la Cruz, “We Can’t Buy Any Land: Farm Workers Plant Cooperative Seeds” (Spring, 1980), 19. 185 Cruz, “We Can’t Buy Any Land,” 20. 186 George Ely, Small Scale Farming, i. 187 Ibid., iv. 69 69 years, activists throughout the 1970s would use these studies to justify their efforts to keep the 160-acre law relevant. In 1977, another report was issued by the Small Farm Viability Planning Project which was sparked by the, “persistence of serious economic and employment problems in rural areas.”188 The questions the study attempted to answer addressed many concerns raised by NLP in 1975 and 1976. The task force identified three basic needs of communities: political self-determination, economic self-reliance, and social enrichment.189 The results concluded, “When small farms are replaced by larger farms, a process of economic and social decay begins in rural communities.”190 This renewed attention to and debate regarding rural America and the importance of the family farm also attracted both the national news media and various newspapers across the state. Stories from small farmers in the San Joaquin Valley took on new importance, such as that of Selma farmer Gabriel Martinez. Martinez was interviewed for the San Francisco Sunday Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle, discussing the amount of hard work he put into his thirty- five acre farm. Despite not being able to read or write, Martinez was able to generate 30,000.00 dollars after only three years of cultivation.191 Other farmers like Carlos Tassey from Firebaugh were making large profits from leased acres, but had hoped to become actual land owners. In one year Tassey was able to net
188 The Family Farm in California: Report of the Small Farm Viability Project, Submitted to the State of California November, 1977, 1. 189 Ibid., 245. 190 Ibid, 243. 191 “Secrets of their Success, Small Farmers Astound Experts.” Lynn Ludlow [S.F. Sunday Examiner & Chronicle] May 6, 1979, Page 14, Section A. Folder 1, Box 1, National Land for People, Special Collections, California State University, Fresno. 70 70 nearly sixty-thousand dollars from three hundred acres, but due to the struggle to enforce the acre limitation believed it would not be possible to ever actually own the land.192 The issues raised by NLP, and the other groups who testified on NLP’s behalf, did so to bring new attention to the San Joaquin Valley, as well as the small farmers who continued to labor on small acreages well into the latter half of the twentieth century. NLP was able to bring national attention to the San Joaquin Valley, a factor which contributed to their success. In the aftermath of the large gains made by the activists of NLP, the massive amount of publicity and national attention garnered by these efforts continued to make an impact throughout the late 1970s. The efforts of Ballis as well as the collective spirit of National Land for People made a national imprint, as became evident in President Jimmy Carter’s special interest in the Westlands. President Carter’s bill, H.R. 4390 signed on June 16th 1977, is evidence of such federal and national concern. Legislation would also include the creation of an Interior Department Task Force, which was responsible for oversight of the Westlands Water District to ensure compliance with the Reclamation Law.193 It is highly unlikely this would have occurred without the passionate and organized efforts of George Ballis and National Land for People for they brought an incredible amount of attention not only to the Westlands, but also to the importance of the small farmer in American culture and society.
192 “Secrets of their Success, Small Farmers Astound Experts.” Lynn Ludlow [S.F. Sunday Examiner & Chronicle] May 6, 1979, Page 14, Section A. Folder 1, Box 1, National Land for People, Special Collections, California State University, Fresno. 193 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web: http://presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7687. 71 71
In 1982, the Reclamation Reform Act would end the 160-acre limitation, extending the acreage limit to 960. It would take the Bureau nearly five years to create the new legislation, something with California Congressman George Miller stated was, “an outrage.”194 Due to this new extension in acreage limitation, Westlands farmers were now receiving annual federal subsidies in the 500,000 dollar range per year through water allocation.195 This would lead to greater compliance and governmental subsidy distributed to large agricultural growers in decades to follow. This factor would also lead to less legitimacy of activist groups, as there would no longer be a legal precedent from which activists could rely on. Although the Reclamation Law was later changed, the efforts of these activists are still significant and meaningful. They helped to sustain throughout the twentieth century the importance of the small American farmer. They inspired legislative changes and compliance from courts, while making aware ordinary Americans who otherwise might have been unconcerned with water, agricultural issues or economic equity in the fields of the San Joaquin Valley.
194 Carter, “Reaping Riches,” 17. 195 Ibid.
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
The Central Valley and the smaller San Joaquin and the political and ideological battles fought over its irrigation, represent a significant piece of the American story. Water is not only a precious natural resource which helps to sustain and produce life in the arid landscape of California, it is also power, defining access to wealth, political relationships, quality of life, and opportunity. Community organizers who were passionate about fair and equitable access to this resource held steadfast to their principles and beliefs, especially the ones which had been promised to them as Americans in a law which had determined decades prior how the West would be settled. Although powerful political and economic counter-interests continued to find ways to maneuver and manipulate established law, they were not successful. These interests would continue to face obstacles, testimony, resistance and public outcry. For these reasons, the historic Reclamation Law of 1902 would not only continue to function in the Valley throughout the twentieth century, but also become an issue of national concern. This history of Central Valley organizing represents the American spirit at its finest, a struggle made from informed and active citizens who made democracy both practical and accessible. This work demonstrates the ways in which small activist groups collectively organized to create meaningful legislative action, educated the public regarding such pressing agricultural concerns, and established unity between a variety of groups and individuals. Together these activists held a singular vision for economic fairness in the fields of the San Joaquin Valley, and made a tremendous impact through their action and words which protected and honored the small family farm and farmer. 73 73
The narrative of the 160-acre limitation tends to be viewed with a focus on the larger political and economic forces which had influence in the Valley. This is understandable and desirable, especially to comprehend the motivations, especially in a twentieth century California, which helped to established large scale modernization of agricultural. Despite this, it is also important to consider the smaller forces at work, especially the activism of small groups who diligently fought for their interests to be represented in such rapidly changing times. Although things were changing in terms of technology and modern development, age old issues concerning economic equality and democracy were not lost on the activists who helped to maintain the 160-acre limitation law. Although these small activist groups faced political defeat in the 1980s and decades to follow, their dedicated and consistent efforts to protect the small farmer through the 160-acre law have not been forgotten. To assume that later defeats make this story one of loss or failure is short sighted. This story of activism is only one of loss if their actions are abandoned or forgotten. By remembering and honoring what these activists accomplished, consistently, for nearly four decades, the power of democratic action is realized. Without such outspoken activism from such a breadth of groups, it is likely the Reclamation Law would have been amended, if not abolished many years earlier. In addition, the appreciation of the small family farm might have been whole heartedly abandoned in the Valley. Through their collective action, activists gave the small farmer legitimacy and support, not only in California, but throughout the United States. They gave the nation at large a moment to pause, and reflect upon the nature of man’s relationship to the land, how farming still meant so much to community, and increased awareness regarding what small scale farming truly meant in the United States, despite large scale industrial changes. 74 74
As the nation became more dependent on factory farms, mechanized agriculture, and large-scale subsidized farming, especially during the twentieth century, the loyalty to the spirit of the small family farm remained true in the United States. This struggle revealed the passion and practical results born from such honorable efforts, the likes of which provide much for present day Americans to learn to from.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ballis, George, Berge Bulbulian and Jerome R. Waldie Select Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, July 17 and 22 1975, 94th Congress, First Session on Will The Family Farm Survive in America? Part I: Federal Reclamation Policy (Westlands Water District).
Ballis, George (Former Director, National Land for People) interview by Dr. Thomas Holyoke, 2010, California State University, Fresno.
California Highways & Public Works. “Public Ownership Imperative Says Governor Olson” December 1939, 1.
Carter, Lloyd G. “Reaping Riches in a Wretched Region: Subsidized Industrial Farming and its Link to Perpetual Poverty.” Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal 3, no.1 (2009).
Chambers, Clarke A. California Farm Organizations: A Historical Study of the Grange, the Farm Bureau, and the Associated Farmers, 1929-1941. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952.
Cooper, Erwin. Aqueduct Empire: A Guide to Water in California, Its Turbulent History and Its Management Today. Glendale: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1968.
Coughlin, Kenneth M. ed. “Perspectives on the Structure of American Agriculture: Volume I: The View from the Farm- Special Problems of Minority and Low-Income Farmers.” Jessie de la Cruz, “We Can’t Buy Any Land: Farm Workers Plant Cooperative Seeds” Spring, 1980. de Roos, Robert. The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1948.
Douglas, Helen Gahagan. “Central Valley Project: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Helen Gahagan Douglas of California in the House of Representatives.” June 1, 1948. National Land for People Archive, California State University Fresno, Henry Madden Library, Special Collections, Box 12, Folder 1.
Douglas, Helen Gahagan , “Moral Problem Involved in 160-Acre Repeal!” Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates on the 81st Congress, First Session. National Land for People Archive, California State University Fresno, Henry Madden Library, Special Collections, Box 1, Folder 1. 76 76 Douglas, Paul H. In the Fullness of Time: The Memoirs of Paul H. Douglas. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.
Downey, Sheridan. They Would Rule the Valley. University of California: 1947.
Ely, George, Jim Gray and Marc Leinwand, Small-Scale Farming in the Westlands: A Rural Land Appraisal. Institute of Governmental Affairs. Davis: University of California, 1977.
Flores, Christina. “They Rule the Valley: The Story of How Large Central Valley Landholders Became the Primary Beneficiaries of the Central Valley Project.” eScholarship Berkeley (2011). https://escholarship.org/uc/ item/7s79r340 (accessed October, 2014).
Frampton, Mary Louise. “The Enforcement of Federal Reclamation Law in the Westlands Water District: A Broken Promise.” U.C. Davis Law Review 13, (1979).
Fuller, Varden. “Acreage Limitation in Federal Irrigation Projects with Particular Reference to the Central Valley Project of California” Journal of Farm Economics 31, no. 4, part 2 (Nov. 1949).
Garcia, Matt. “The Road Not Taken in Farm Worker Justice: Paul Taylor and Ben Yellen, ‘Foundations of California Rural Society’,” California History 91, no.1, (Spring 2014).
Goggans, Jan. California on the Breadlines: Dorothea Lange, Paul Taylor and the Making of a New Deal Narrative. Berkeley: University of California, 2010.
Hundley, Norris. The Great Thirst: Californians and Water: A History. Berkeley. University of California, 2001.
Hyatt, Edward. “A State Water Policy for California.” Presentation, meeting for American Water Works Association, San Francisco, CA, June 2, 1928.
Igler, David. Industrial Cowboys: Miller & Lux and the Transformation of the Far West 1850- 1920. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
Koppes, Clayton R. “Public Water, Private Land: Origins of the Acreage Limitation Controversy, 1933-1953” Pacific Historical Review 47, no. 4 (Nov., 1978).
Lee, Lawrence B. “California Water Politics: Opposition to the CVP, 1944-1980” Agricultural History 54, no. 3 (July 1980). 77 77 Lowitt, Richard. The New Deal and the West. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.
Ludlow, Lynn. “Secrets of their Success, Small Farmers Astound Experts.” [S.F. Sunday Examiner & Chronicle] May 6, 1979, National Land for People Archive, California State University Fresno, Henry Madden Library, Special Collections, Box 1, Folder 1.
McWilliams, Carey. California: The Great Exception. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949.
McWilliams, Carey. Factories in the Fields. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1935.
Mitchell, Martin D. “The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California: Initial Transformation into a Water Supply and Conveyance Node, 1900-1955.” Journal of the West XXXV, no.1, (Jan. 1996).
Montgomery, Mary and Marion Clawson. United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics: History of Legislation and Policy Formation of the Central Valley Project, Berkeley: United States Department of Agriculture, 1946.
Pisani, Donald J. “Federal Reclamation and the American West in the Twentieth Century.” Agricultural History Society 77, no. 3 (Summer, 2003).
Pisani, Donald J. Water and American Government: The Reclamation Bureau, National Water Policy, and the West, 1902-1935. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Powell, John Wesley. A Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah (1876).
Reisner, Marc. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1986.
Riess, Suzanne B. and Malca Chall. Paul Schuster Taylor: California Social Scientist, Vol I. II and III: Education, Field Research, and Family & California Water and Agricultural Labor. The Bancroft Library, Regional Oral History Office, Earl Warren Oral History Project. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, 1973-1975. California State University, Fresno, Henry Madden Library, Special Collections. 78 78 Scobie, Ingrid Winther. Center Stage: Helen Gahagan Douglas, A Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Seckler, David and Robert A. Young, “Economic and Policy Implications of the 160-Acre Limitation in Federal Reclamation Law” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, No. 4 (Nov., 1978).
Soto, Gary. Jessie De La Cruz: A Profile of a United Farm Worker. New York: Persea Books, Inc., 2000.
Steinbeck, John. Grapes of Wrath. United States of America: Stratford Press, 1939.
Street, Richard. “The Economist as Humanist: The Career of Paul S. Taylor” California History 58, no. 4 (Winter 1979/1980): 350-361.
Taylor, Paul S. “Central Valley Project: Water and Land” The Western Political Quarterly 2, no 2. (Jun., 1949).
Taylor, Paul S. “The Excess Land Law: Execution of a Public Policy” The Yale Law Journal 64, no. 4 (Feb., 1955).
Taylor, Paul S. “The 160-Acre Water Limitation and the Water Resources Commission” The Western Political Quarterly 3, no. 3 (Sept., 1950).
The Family Farm in California: Report of the Small Farm Viability Project, Submitted to the State of California November, 1977.
Vaught, David. Cultivating California: Growers, Specialty Crops, and Labor, 1875-1920. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Woolf, Jack (Board of Directors, Westlands Water District) interview by Dr. Thomas Holyoke, 2009, C.S.U. Fresno Central Valley Water Archives Project.
Woolley, John T. and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web: http://presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7687.
Worster, Donald. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. New York: Pantheon Books, 1985. Fresno State
Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to archive your thesis/dissertation electronically via the library’s eCollections database)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to Fresno State Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that Fresno State may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Fresno State the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than Fresno State, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement.
Fresno State will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.
Embargo options (fill box with an X).
Make my thesis or dissertation available to eCollections immediately upon x submission.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 2 years from date of graduation.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 5 years from date of graduation.
Toini Hiipakka
Type full name as it appears on submission
Sept 15, 2016
Date